Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Lime Supplies, Shetland

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that no crofter in Shetland can get an order accepted for lime to be delivered in 1949; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I understand that local suppliers are unable at present to accept new orders because orders to the extent of 300 tons are outstanding. Local production, which was started in 1945 with the aid of a grant from State funds, and discontinued recently, has been resumed. Weather conditions and lack of storage had an adverse effect on output last year. If need be I shall endeavour to arrange additional supplies from mainland sources this year.

Prairie Buster Plough, Shetland

Sir B. Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will

arrange to have a Prairie Buster plough permanently stationed in Shetland to facilitate the work of breaking in hill land.

Mr. Woodburn: I regret that the limited number of Prairie Buster ploughs held by the Tractor Service of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland will not permit of one being permanently stationed in Shetland. I shall keep the request in mind should additional ploughs of this type become available.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some years ago in Orkney it was found that this kind of plough with a caterpillar track was the only effective and economic means of breaking in the wet and stony hill land? What is the point of whetting our appetites for this sort of plough in the Shetlands and then denying it to us?

Mr. Woodburn: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but the number of these ploughs is limited. They are rather formidable to transport from one place to another. However, I shall keep the matter in mind.

Mr. MacLeod: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep the matter in mind for other areas in Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes.

Industry and Employment (White Paper)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to submit the annual review of Scottish affairs to Parliament.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope that I may be able to present a White Paper on Industry and Employment in Scotland in 1948 to Parliament in April.

Peat Development (Committee)

Colonel Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what report he has received from the Scottish Reconstruction Committee on Peat Development; and whether he will make it available.

Mr. Woodburn: I have received a memorandum from the Scottish Reconstruction Committee recommending a programme of investigation and research into the development of Scottish peat deposits. My Departments are discussing proposals on similar lines with other


interested Departments, but I could not usefully publish any statement meanwhile.

Colonel Hutchison: Since this question has been going on for so long, and is so important for Scotland, will not the right hon. Gentleman make the report of the Scottish Reconstruction Committee available to those of us who are interested?

Mr. Woodburn: This is a private organisation, but the investigations about peat are very elaborate and widespread. We are hopeful of very great developments in regard to peat. We are not, however, in a position to make these known yet.

Open Prisons

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider establishing one or more open prisons in Scotland, taking special regard to the importance of assisting first offenders back to full citizenship.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir, I have in mind the possibility of establishing an open prison for selected prisoners.

Aged Infirm (Care)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the unsatisfactory administration and accommodation of a number of institutions in Scotland designed for the needs of the aged infirm; and if he will appoint a committee to make a Scottish survey into the present accommodation for these people, with terms of reference permitting them to recommend the best accommodation and service to the aged infirm in urgent need of this attention.

Mr. Woodburn: The duty of providing residential accommodation for such persons, if they do not require hospital care, rests with local authorities under the National Assistance Act. Authorities are due to submit to me by 5th April schemes for the discharge of this duty. General guidance on the subject has already been given to them and pending consideration of these schemes it seems to me that the action suggested by the hon. Member would be premature.

Mr. Carmichael: Will the Minister, after receiving the reports from the local

authorities, be prepared to submit a report to the House of Commons, if a Question is put to him on the subject?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, of course; but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me time to consider the reports and what action should be taken.

Wheat Subsidy Payments

Mr. McKie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason for the late payments this year of the wheat subsidies to producers.

Mr. Woodburn: Payments began as usual early in October and have progressed more quickly than in any previous year.

Mr. McKie: Is the Minister aware that there are many cases that I could bring to his notice where payments have been very much behind those of previous years; and will he take steps next year, if he is still in office, to see that the payments are made more quickly?

Mr. Woodburn: I am glad to report progress this year, and we hope to accelerate it next year.

Elections (Candidates and Agents)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that candidates and agents at the forthcoming local elections in Scotland will be fully acquainted with the changes made in the conduct of elections by the Representation of the People Act, 1948.

Mr. Woodburn: A leaflet for the use of candidates is in preparation and it is hoped to place it on sale at an early date.

Fishery Works, Outer Hebrides

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what fishery pier, jetty and harbourage works are now actually under construction in the Outer Hebrides, apart from the Stornoway harbour improvement scheme; and what proportion the cost of these fishery works represents of the total grants from the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in the current financial year.

Mr. Woodburn: Apart from the improvement scheme at Stornoway, estimated to cost £300,000, work estimated to cost £1,600 is in progress on Lochboisdale Pier, which is used by fishermen.

Afforestation, Outer Hebrides

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the intentions and plans of the Scottish Department of Agriculture for shelter belt afforestation in the Outer Hebrides in the interests of agricultural development, including crop protection and provision of shelter for livestock; and when work is to begin.

Mr. Woodburn: The establishment of shelter belts is one of the improvements which may be included in Rehabilitation Schemes under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, and my Department are ready to consider any improvement schemes, including provision for shelter belts, which may be submitted to them by owners or tenants in the Outer Hebrides. Assistance can only be given where the shelter belts form part of a comprehensive hill farm rehabilitation scheme.

Mr. MacMillan: Is it not possible and desirable for the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to undertake this work themselves on their own estates in the Islands?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir, but it would require to be part of the general scheme.

Employment, Outer Hebrides

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the increasing unemployment in the Outer Hebrides among people classed as employed persons and among those on the self-employed register since sales of Harris Tweed fell following the increase of Purchase Tax last April; and what steps the Scottish Departments are taking to assist.

Mr. Woodburn: I am aware that since last summer there has been an increase in unemployment in the Outer Hebrides among persons registered as employed persons though the number unemployed is less than half what it was two years ago and only 47 more than it was a year ago. Part of the recent increase is attributable to seasonal causes and to bad weather. As my hon. Friend is aware it

is not possible to form an accurate estimate of the amount of concealed unemployment among people registered as self-employed persons. As regards the last part of the Question, a number of schemes which should provide employment are being sponsored by the Scottish Departments.

Mr. MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been in fact a very steady rise in the number of people classed as self-employed who are now unemployed, to between 750 and 1,000; and will he say why there is no mention of this in his reply?

Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend could not have heard me say that it is very difficult to keep an accurate estimate of the concealed unemployment among such people. As he knows, investigation is going on into ways and means of helping these people in their trouble.

Commander Galbraith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Treasury reply to the recent Adjournment Debate on this subject was not in accordance with the facts and, therefore, quite unconvincing; and will he see that the Department is properly informed as to Scottish matters in the future, and press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that this very deserving section of the population shall not be forced into unemployment?

Mr. Woodburn: I am not aware that the Treasury reply was inaccurate. The subject is much more complicated than can be stated in answer to a simple question. The matter is being investigated, but there is a very thorny problem to settle, which will be settled if it is at all possible.

EX-SERVICE MEN'S WIDOWS (PENSIONS)

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the number of deaths amongst war disability pensioners during the past five years; the numbers of pensions awarded to widows in respect of those deaths; whether he is satisfied that the fullest possible assistance is given to widows in preparation of claims; and if he will consider the special training and appointment of his Department's officers to act as widow's pensions officers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): About 63,000 ex-Service disablement pensioners died during the five years period ended December last. About 38,000 of these pensioners left widows, 12,400 of whom were granted pension on the basis that the husband's death was related to his war service. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that every assistance is given to widows who require help in the preparation of claims both at Headquarters and in the regional offices of the Department. Trained women officers in the regional offices already provide expert guidance. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the various organisations and voluntary workers throughout the country who also give valuable help in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Barrack Wardens

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for War how many service pensioners are on the waiting list for employment as barrack wardens.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Eight hundred and ninety-one.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) why civilian temporary clerical employees, who have never served in the Forces, are being granted establishment in posts in barracks which were formerly reserved for service pensioners;
(2) why the post of fuel and light accountant barrack warden, formerly filled by service pensioners, has now been abolished and replaced by a somewhat similar post staffed by civilian clerical workers.

Mr. Shinwell: I will, with permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir Ronald Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that he will not employ non-ex-Service men, citizens of a neighbouring Republic, in preference to British ex-Service men in these posts?

Mr. Shinwell: We will be reasonable in the matter.

Following is the answer:

War-time expansion of barrack offices produced more vacancies for fuel and light accountants than could be filled by available pensioners and as the work is clerical, temporary clerical civilians had to be engaged to fill the posts, which they did with complete satisfaction. Since the war the policy which has been followed by Departments has been to assimilate as many as possible of the miscellaneous grades employed, to one or other of the larger classes wherever the work undertaken was similar. The work of fuel and light accountants was very similar to that undertaken by the general clerical class of the Civil Service, and accordingly they were assimilated to the general clerical class, and the grade of fuel and light accountant was abolished.

Barrack offices are now therefore staffed by members of the general clerical class. Under the conditions for establishment in this class, which have been published from time to time, some temporary clerks are eligible for establishment, and no doubt some of those employed in barrack offices have been or will be established under these conditions.

I should make it clear that this refers only to the fuel and light accountants. As regards the posts of barrack store accountant and barrack inventory accountant, it was necessary during the war, owing to expansion and the shortage of ex-Regular soldiers, to accept some new entrants to these grades who did not possess the full service qualifications. Because of their services to the Department, these war-time entrants were given opportunities of competing for establishment when the first post-war scheme was worked out, but all new recruits will in future have to have had not less than twelve years' Colour service.

Forces, Tripolitania

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the present rate of local overseas allowances in Tripolitania in respect of accommodated men and non-accommodated men, respectively; and what are the estimated costs upon which each is based.

Mr. Shinwell: There are no rates for single officers and other ranks. The rates for married accommodated officers and


other ranks range from 6s. 9d. to 8s. 3d. a day according to rank. Rates for married unaccommodated officers and other ranks are at present under consideration and decisions will shortly be notified to those concerned. In the last part of the Question I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to costs in Tripolitania. Local overseas allowance is granted in aid of essential additional expenditure incurred by troops overseas as compared with the United Kingdom to enable them to live a reasonable life at the station and in calculating the allowance local costs of commodities and services are taken into account.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that at present both accommodated and non-accommodated men are receiving the same rate of local overseas allowance, but in fact the expenses incurred in the case of accommodated men are only one guinea as compared with £3 7s. 6d. in the case of non-accommodated men, and does he not think that there is a strong case for raising the overseas allowance for accommodated men?

Mr. Shinwell: This matter was settled some time ago, and I do not think that this is the occasion for a further review.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War how many ration cuts for British troops formerly serving in Palestine and now serving in Tripolitania there have been since April, 1948; and how the present ration compares with that of April, 1948.

Mr. Shinwell: The nutritional value of the ration now provided for British troops in Tripolitania is similar to that of the ration provided for the troops in Palestine in April 1948. Since then, however, the daily ration has been re-adjusted with the object of saving dollar expenditure. The quantities of meat, bacon and cheese have been reduced, but these reductions have been offset by increases in other items, namely, bread, fats and sugar, sufficient to maintain the calorie value of the scale at its previous level. The adjustments to the scales were made in two stages in May and August, 1948; no other adjustments have been made since August.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two adjustments to which he refers were in

fact worked out on reductions of 10 per cent. overall on each occasion; that troops are now receiving 20 per cent. less, and 30 men have to be fed out of one tin of bacon?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware that these allegations can be substantiated.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the Minister aware that this was brought to his notice before Christmas, and has he done anything about it yet?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Member has some specific information about these matters of which I am not aware, I should be glad if he would let me have it.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that a very senior officer in the War Office visited Tripolitania before Christmas and brought this information back to him?

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War how many War Department quarters are now occupied by officers and other ranks respectively in Tripolitania; how many quarters have been leased by private agreement; and what are the expected increases in War Department quarters in Tripolitania for the next six months.

Mr. Shinwell: Information is not available as to how many quarters are actually occupied at present. By 31st March, 1949, there should, according to present arrangements, be 65 officers' and 225 other ranks' quarters available or in occupation in Tripolitania and 74 leased or available for leasing by individual private agreement. I cannot forecast what further quarters may in future be provided in Tripolitania.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why his Department do not know how many quarters they at present occupy.

Mr. Shinwell: Probably, because we have not full information.

Fire Brigade, Gibraltar

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for War what representations he has received regarding the bad and inadequate food provided for the


members of the military fire brigade, Gibraltar; and what steps have been taken to improve it.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of any complaint from this unit about their food, although during January the standard of cooking was temporarily upset by repairs to the cookhouse of the neighbouring unit by which they are messed.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the right right hon. Gentleman aware that I hold in my hand a letter from a constituent of mine stationed there who says:
I know personally that some of my comrades wrote direct to Mr. Shinwell about this appalling food.

Mr. Shinwell: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had a letter in his hand.

Anti-Aircraft Command and R.E.M.E.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) what is the establishment of Anti-Aircraft Command; and also what is the strength of that command at the present time;
(2) whether all the weapons and equipment which will be required for the purposes of Anti-Aircraft Command, when that command attains its full establishment, are available at the present time; or what are the principal deficiencies;
(3) what is the establishment of the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers; and what is its present strength.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not the practice to publish information of the kind asked for in these Questions.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware—it is partially public property—that there is a very grave shortage, amounting to many thousands of men, in the establishment of Anti-Aircraft Command; is it not a fact that the first shock of war, if it does come, must fall on that command; has not the right hon. Gentleman himself comparatively recently said that the shock, when it comes, will be sharp and sudden; and in that case is it not very necessary that something should be done to bring this command up to establishment in both personnel and equipment?

Mr. Shinwell: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are looking very closely into this very important matter of Anti-Aircraft Command.

Brigadier Head: Is not the Secretary of State aware that this absolute secrecy in this respect is at direct variance with the custom in America; and that such a very tight band of secrecy serves only to alarm people instead of reassuring them, as they think that behind the smoke screen there can be little ready?

Mr. Shinwell: It is not customary to adopt in this country all the practices adopted in the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Uniform

Colonel Ropner: asked the Secretary of State for War when the issue of number one dress to the Territorial Army will begin; and by what date he anticipates that all recruits to the Territorial Army will be issued with No. 1 dress on joining.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) on 14th December last.

Colonel Ropner: Is the Minister aware that the lack of drill hall accommodation, the shoddy state of equipment, and the fact that No. 1 dress is not issued to Territorials are real discouragements to recruiting for the Territorial Army, and can he account for the quite unreasonable delay in starting on the issue of No. 1 dress?

Mr. Shinwell: There is no unreasonable delay. There happens to be a shortage of materials.

Proposed Training Centre, The Dukeries

Mr. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the congested inland populations living around the open areas known as the Dukeries and the need for the preservation of open spaces in that part of the country, why he proposes to utilise the area as a military training ground.

Mr. Shinwell: A proposal is under consideration to use an area of about 2,300 acres in the Dukeries as a week-end training centre for units of the Territorial Army. There is a large number of Territorial Army units in the neighbourhood. The men must be trained, and their training takes place primarily at week-ends. Accordingly, there must be adequate facilities for training within easy reach of their homes. So far as my Department is concerned, the public would he permitted complete freedom of access to the area at all times so far as good military training allowed. The requirement will be considered in due course by the Services Lands Requirements Committee, and if it appears that substantial objections on grounds of the public interest still remain, a public local inquiry will be held.

Mr. Harrison: As my right hon. Friend will be aware that this area contains the most delightful countryside in the county of Nottinghamshire, could he not find for purposes of this kind—as I am sure he could find—other less densely populated places in the county?

Mr. Shinwell: Unfortunately, we cannot always provide alternative training ground. Although we are very unwilling to trespass on the life of the country and to interfere with the pleasures of the people. I am afraid that we must utilise these areas for training purposes.

Recruiting Display, Aberystwyth

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the purpose of his visit to Aberystwyth; the cost of the display; the number of recruits enlisted; and what other results have been obtained.

Mr. Shinwell: The purpose of my visit to Aberystwyth was to open a Territorial Army recruiting week at the request of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command and the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association of Cardiganshire. The cost of the display was about £100. As the campaign took place only last week I cannot say how many recruits have been enlisted but interest has been aroused not only among the inhabitants of Aberystwyth, but also among the students. Experience shows that the results of a recruiting campaign of this sort cannot be expected immediately.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister tell us if he said to the students:
If you are not disciplined now you will be disciplined when we get you.
and if that was followed by the question:
When did you join?"—
and what was the Minister's reply?

Mr. Shinwell: All I have to say is that that observation was quite off the record.

Colonel Ropner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that rather less talk and rather more practical demonstrations of sympathy with the Territorial Army would do more good, as for instance the issuing of No. 1 battledress?

Mr. Shinwell: All I can say is that a great deal has been done for the Territorial Army organisation in the past 12 months.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Mining (Development Charge)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what regulations he has made defining who pays the development charge in respect of mining operations carried on under a mining lease; and whether this charge is additional to the royalty payable to the person prior to the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): In most cases of this type, no development charge is payable in respect of mining operations carried out up to the end of June, 1951, because an exemption is given by the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1948. After that date, development charge is payable by the mining operator, but the regulations enable the royalty payable under the lease to be adjusted. In most cases, therefore, the total of the development charge plus the reduced royalty is not likely to exceed the royalty payable before the Act. There may be cases where the royalty payable before the Act is below the current market level, in which event the total of the development charge plus the reduced royalty may be more than the old royalty; but in such cases the mining operator can claim on the £300 million and has been promised preferential treatment.

Mr. Marshall: The Minister will be aware that his answer will naturally need studying, but as there has been great confusion over this matter will he ensure that special publicity is given to his answer?

Mr. Silkin: I hope that the answer will itself evoke interest and publicity.

Rights of Way

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when regulations will be introduced for the establishment of rights of access to uncultivated land and the determination of public rights of way, as proposed in the Hobhouse Committee.

Mr. Silkin: As my hon. Friend will be aware, legislation to deal with these matters was promised in the Gracious Speech from the Throne.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Appointments

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many salaried appointments in convenient categories have been made, to the latest available date, under the National Insurance Act; and what is the annual sum represented by these appointments.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): I would refer the hon. Member to the Estimates for my Department for 1948–49 included in the Civil Estimates Class V. The numbers employed and the salary costs have conformed substantially with the information given in those Estimates.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that those Estimates showed a large increase, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that at a time when the leaders of his party are calling for increased production this increased expenditure increases our costs of production and impedes or destroys our ability to compete in the markets of the world; and is he not further aware that the first social service must be food?

Old Age Pensioners

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he has now considered the results of the inquiry

conducted by the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners into the average cost of living among pensioners, particulars of which inquiry have been supplied him; and, as the facts reveal the existence of serious hardship among pensioners, what steps he is taking immediately to improve their lot by a substantial increase in their pension rates.

Mr. Steele: I am aware of these inquiries, but old people who find their pensions insufficient for their needs can apply to the National Assistance Board for supplementation in accordance with rules approved by this House as recently as July last. As regards any general increase in pension rates, I would refer my hon. Friend to the letter which my right hon. Friend recently sent to the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), of which he was sent a copy.

Mr. Davies: Can my hon. Friend inform me of the nature of the instructions which have been issued to assistance boards in cases of serious hardship; and if the instructions mean that old age pensioners might have a substantial increase in income, will he be good enough to publicise that and draw the attention of old age pensioners to the fact?

Mr. Steele: My hon. Friend referred specifically in his Question to pension rates, which I think was covered very adequately in the letter to the hon. Member for East Ham, North. So far as discretion is concerned, each local officer of the assistance board is allowed a certain discretion, which we know he does use in particular instances.

Mr. Shurmer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the assistance board officers are not carrying out the instructions? Is he further aware that I have a letter stating that a man receiving 34s. a week should be prepared to provide himself with boots? Old age pensioners cannot provide themselves with boots on these rates and assistance ought to be given.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that by a large majority the members of this Federation consider the Government have betrayed them? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They do, and I have had letters to that effect. Is he further aware that the best service he can render is to reduce the cost of living rather than to increase the pensions?

Mr. Tom Brown: Will not the Parliamentary Secretary consider, with the Chairman of the National Assistance Board, a cost of living bonus for the old people, in view of the hardship they are experiencing due to the increased cost of living?

Mr. Steele: The specific Question put to me is in connection with the pension rates under the National Insurance Scheme. As far as the scales for National Assistance are concerned, I would draw attention to the fact that this matter was discussed in July last and was warmly approved by the House.

Sick Benefit, Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he is taking to reduce the period of waiting for the payment of sickness benefit in Cardiff.

Mr. Steele: Owing to the increased volume of claims in January work fell slightly into arrear in some offices in Cardiff. Steps were taken to deal with the situation which I am informed has now much improved.

Mr. Thomas: Can my hon. Friend give any reasonable assurance that there will not be a period of several weeks of waiting in future for sickness benefit?

Mr. Steele: As I have already indicated, there was a large increase in sickness in Cardiff during certain weeks in January. I am assured that steps have been taken to strengthen the staff in particular offices to cover that point.

Wife Desertion (Information)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of National Insurance why he refuses information to the police where a warrant is issued for the arrest of a husband who deserts his wife and family, leaving their maintenance to National Assistance.

Mr. Steele: I am not aware of any case in which such circumstances have arisen, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has one in mind and will let me have the details I will make further inquiries.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While assuring my hon. Friend that he can have the details right away, may I ask is it the general and standard practice of his

Department to co-operate with the police in the execution of their duties in cases of this kind?

Mr. Steele: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHEUMATIC DISEASES (RESEARCH)

Dr. Segal: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that contributions to research in rheumatic diseases have suffered a severe falling off since the inception of the National Health Service in July last; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have no information about contributions by members of the public to unofficial organisations interested in the promotion of research into rheumatic diseases. Government aid to medical research in all branches is given through the Medical Research Council or, in the case of certain types of work, through the Ministry of Health.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Industry (Regional Organisation)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the great differences in the quantity of organisational charts and descriptive leaflets by the Regional Organisation for Industry distributed in the various regions, varying between 14,000 in the case of the London and South-Eastern Region and 1,500 in the case of the Northern Region; and what steps he proposes to take to encourage the regions concerned to make up this disparity.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): Yes, Sir. The basis for the distribution of these documents was the same in the two regions, but the hon. Member will appreciate that the number of firms in each region varies widely.

Mr. Cooper: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer recall that I have been following up this matter by Questions in the House for over two years, and can he take some more vigorous steps to stimulate the Regional Organisation for


Industry so that it can be more effective, perhaps acting as the Government's own system of joint consultation with industry in helping the production drive?

Sir S. Cripps: Those steps have been taken and the regional board is doing a very good job indeed.

Income Tax (Territorial Army Pay)

Colonel Ropner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why men who have recently joined the Territorial Army have received an Income Tax Notice of Coding for 1949–50 which shows a deduction from admissible tax allowances in respect of Territorial pay; and if he will remedy this.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that men joining the Territorial Army are receiving Income Tax notices indicating a deduction from tax allowances in respect of Territorial Army pay, and that this is causing dissatisfaction; and if he will take steps to remove this grievance.

Sir S. Cripps: The training pay and allowances to members of the Territorial Army, other than the training expenses allowances and annual bounty, are liable to Income Tax. As the taxable amounts are not known in advance, they are not normally taken into account in the P.A.Y.E. coding for the year of payment but are left for assessment at the end of the year. Any member of the Territorial Army who is dissatisfied with his coding in this respect should communicate with his tax office.

Colonel Ropner: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that coding has been done in advance and that men who have recently joined the Territorial Army are already receiving assessments for the year 1949–50? While he has said it is normal that they should not be assessed in advance, cannot he take steps to ensure that they are not assessed in advance, and that these men are not given notice that they are to pay taxation on money they have not yet earned?

Sir S. Cripps: It has apparently happened in a few isolated cases, although what is the particular reason I cannot at

the moment say; but the general practice is as I have stated.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Would not the simplest Way to avoid such difficulties in the future be to make these particular payments tax free? Would not that be one of the best ways for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to follow up his broadcast?

Sir S. Cripps: I think not. The House discussed this very fully during the Finance Bill, 1947, and came to a different conclusion.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is it possible for assessments to be made covering the financial year in respect of rates of taxation that have not yet been announced?

Sir S. Cripps: It is not a question of assessment but of fixing the code number.

Medical Treatment Abroad (Foreign Exchange)

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the life of Mr. J. M. Heron, correspondence about whose case has been sent to him, depends upon his going at once to Switzerland for treatment; and if he will, at the earliest moment, make the necessary exchange available.

Sir S. Cripps: The Exchange Control Medical Advisory Committee have reconsidered the application carefully and sympathetically, but, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, they have not felt justified in altering their previous refusal.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman going to hide behind this Committee which has not met since last October, whereas this application was received only last month? Is the Committee made up of such nonentities that he will not even give their names?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, I do not propose to give their names. It would be very undesirable for personal pressure to be brought to bear upon them. As far as the Committee are concerned, I think they are better judges than I am of the illness of a particular individual.

Earl Winterton: If there is medical evidence to the effect that this man's life


can be saved only by going to Switzerland, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not taking a very serious moral responsibility in refusing the necessary amount of money?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, that is what the medical board is for. There are many people who would like to go to Switzerland, but everyone cannot go and the medical board has to decide which are the most necessary cases.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Since this Exchange Control Medical Advisory Committee must be a go-between between the private consultant and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how do we know that it does not act in the interests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not of the patient?

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Owing to the inhuman answer the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given, I shall take the very earliest opportunity to raise this question on the Adjournment.

Government Hospitality, London (Cost)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the cost of 2, Park Street, W.1, for purposes of Government hospitality, giving separately capital and current expenditure and the period covered; what has been the average cost per guest per day including overhead expenses; and how far alternative accommodation was available.

Sir S. Cripps: Number 2, Park Street was opened because it was and often still is impossible for London hotels to provide adequate accommodation for Government and Government-sponsored guests from overseas. The capital expenditure from 3rd May, 1948, to 10th February, 1949, was £7,250: the current expenditure from 3rd May to 31st December, 1948, was £50,000; the average cost per guest per night was given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in reply to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on Thursday last.

Sir J. Mellor: Did the figure given last Thursday refer to the cost of all guests, or was it only for overseas guests?

Sir S. Cripps: I think all the guests are from overseas, except for a few cases

where guests have been put up at the request of neighbouring hotels that have been short of accommodation on a particular night.

Mr. Stanley: Has the Chancellor made inquiries to see whether the situation has not changed in the last year, and whether it would not now be quite easy to find accommodation in first-class hotels at less than the £12 a night which this is costing the Government?

Sir S. Cripps: The charge in first-class hotels is not much less. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members will study the charges that are made for a visiting Prime Minister who stays, for instance, at Claridges or somewhere else they will find they are not much less. We have made inquiries, and the general opinion expressed by the hotel-keepers is that 1949 is likely to be a very difficult year for accommodation in London. We are keeping the thing constantly under review, and as soon as the time comes, when we can conveniently get accommodation in ordinary hotels, we shall certainly discontinue this special use.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Chancellor if it would be possible for him or his Department to make out a list of what people get for £12 a night in an hotel?

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether No. 2, Park Street is more or less fully occupied?

Sir S. Cripps: Obviously I could not give figures without notice. If the hon. Member will give me notice, I will try to answer the question.

Marshall Aid

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent Marshall Aid will be cut for the 15 months period commencing 3rd April, 1949.

Sir S. Cripps: E.C.A. have requested Congress to appropriate 5,580 million dollars for this period. This request is now being considered by Congress.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, unless this suicidal policy of nationalised industries is stopped, there will be a considerable reduction in. or stoppage of, Marshall Aid?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's hopes are not likely to come true.

Sir W. Smithers: I know more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman does.

Retail Sales (Taxation)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will adopt the scheme for collecting Purchase Tax similar to that operating in the United States of America where State and Federal Tax is paid at the time when the goods are actually purchased by the consumer.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. A retail sales tax has repeatedly been considered and rejected as unsatisfactory.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that something is very necessary at the moment in view of the fact that uncertainty regarding Purchase Tax and the Budget changes which are being anticipated by both buyers and retailers, is having a ruinous effect on the distributive trade? In those circumstances, cannot my right hon. and learned Friend tax his ingenuity to discover some system whereby people will not lose money as a result of Budget changes in relation to stocks Which they hold?

Sir S. Cripps: I am quite aware of the difficulties which are raised by Purchase Tax, especially if people contemplate that there is likely to be any alteration, but I am afraid that is not a matter which can be overcome by a retail sales tax.

Trade Consultations (U.K. and Canada)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the unsatisfactory balance of payments between this country and Canada, which is stifling bilateral trade important to both countries, he will arrange for joint consultations at high Government levels, to overcome this position.

Sir S. Cripps: Apart from other frequent contacts, at all levels, machinery was set up by agreement between the Governments last autumn for this purpose in the form of the U.K. Canadian Continuing Committee on Trade and

Economic Affairs which has just held its first meeting in London.

Mr. Harrison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that method of tackling this dangerous problem is sufficient owing to the fact that ordinary trade adjustments will not by any means meet the position?

Sir S. Cripps: It was after discussion with the Canadian Ministers last autumn that we decided that that was the best step to take.

Easter Holiday (Foreign Currency Allowance)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will date the beginning of the new tourist foreign currency allowance so as to allow Easter holidays to be spent abroad.

Sir S. Cripps: I have considered the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member with the greatest sympathy, but I regret that I cannot accept it, in fairness to those who have already planned their holidays, and owing to the difficulty of adjusting the administration of the present arangements at short notice.

Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say for what reason 1st May was chosen last year as the beginning of the foreign currency year?

Sir W. Smithers: It is Labour Day.

Sir S. Cripps: It was chosen as a matter of general convenience after negotiations with the various countries with whom we were making arrangements.

Siam and Burma Railway (Claims)

Colonel Hutchison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the railway between Siam and Burma built by the Japanese with Allied prisoner of war labour has been treated by the Allied Governments in their post-war arrangements with these countries.

Sir S. Cripps: The railway was treated as a Japanese external asset. The part which lies in Siam was sold to Siam for £1,250,000; in this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to my hon.
Friend, the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. Williams), on 20th November, 1947. Nothing would have been gained by any payment from Burma in respect of her share of the railway, as, under the Financial Settlement in 1947, His Majesty's Government agreed to waive their claims to repayment of a large part of Burma's debt to this country.

Colonel Hutchison: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that letters have been received in this country from Australian ex-Service men employed on this work while prisoners who claim that they have had a bonus or a payment or a shareout from their Government as a result of the sale of this railway? Will he investigate that, and will he say whether it is true, and if it is not true, will he categorically deny it, because it is causing considerable jealousy and discontent among ex-prisoners in this country?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will send me the documents to which he refers, I will have them looked into.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Burmese Government are in default in respect of several sorts of obligation towards this country, notably towards members of the Burmese Defence Force who lost their goods in the course of the last war? Will he set off against that some of these hypothetical receipts and accept those obligations on behalf of His Majesty's Government?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that has nothing to do with this Question.

Colonel Hutchison: While I will try to send the right hon. and learned Gentleman the documents—they are private letters—will he not say here and now whether there is any truth in this point? He must know whether the Australians have had a share-out?

Sir S. Cripps: It is not for me to give evidence here as to actions by the Australian Government with regard to Australian pensioners. Whether they have made payments or not, I am quite unable to say, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me know what it is alleged has been paid, I will inquire into it.

Mr. Stanley: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clear this up? Did the

Australian Government have any part of this £1,250,000 which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was paid by Siam for this railway?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. As far as I am aware they did not have any of it.

Special Contribution (Payments)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the amount of interest lost to the Exchequer due to the failure of the Treasury to cash cheques sent in as payment for the special contribution until several weeks after they had been received; and if he will take steps in future to avoid this loss.

Sir S. Cripps: It is not possible to calculate what has been the loss to the Exchequer through delay in dealing with cheques sent in payment for special contribution but it is not serious. The delay, which I very much regret, arose mainly because sufficient trainee staff were not available to deal with the very large number of payments remitted on or about 1st January. Generally, cheques are now being cleared as they are received.

Mr. Bossom: Would it not have been far better if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had never even asked for this payment instead of delaying the cashing of the cheques?

Sir S. Cripps: The delaying of the cashing of the cheques may have cost us about £500. The payments are £100 million.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Government's interest on the special contribution ends as from the date of the cheque or from the date of cashing the cheque?

Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper.

Tobacco Tokens (Lost Books)

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of hardship which follows the loss of the Tobacco Duty relief token book by old age pensioners, he is prepared to make them some concession.

Sir S. Cripps: I fear that, as has been explained on several previous occasions, lost token books cannot be replaced.

Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I know the answer but that I think it is hard on these poor old people, in view of the small amount of money involved, to rob them of a little luxury, one of the few they get? Would it not be possible to make it a condition that old age pensioners should present their pension books in order to prevent unauthorised persons obtaining these Tobacco Duty relief token books? It is a shame to rob these old people of this little luxury.

Sir S. Cripps: This latitude was given to assist old age pensioners so that they should not always have to attend personally in order to draw their tobacco.

Entertainments Duty

Mr. Bossom: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why entertainment tax on speedway racing is 1s. 1d. for every 2s. 6d. ticket, whereas for boxing and ice hockey the entertainment tax is only 6½d. for the same price ticket.

Sir S. Cripps: Payments for admission to speedway racing are taxed at the same rates as for other forms of motor racing.

Mr. Bossom: What is the difference between the two forms of entertainment? Why cannot they be made uniform at the lower level?

Sir S. Cripps: Because Parliament introduced differentiations in the entertainments duty according to different classifications.

National Insurance Funds (Investments)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give, at the latest available date, an account showing the nature and amount of the securities held by the National Debt Commissioners as investments for moneys of the National Insurance Funds.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. In accordance with long established practice, I am not prepared to anticipate information which will be given to Parliament under Statute.

Sir W. Smithers: May I take it that these securities are invested in Government securities, and will the right hon.

and learned Gentleman try to find trustee securities other than Government securities, because they will be a better security for these Funds?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Remittances Abroad (France)

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further applications have been received by his Department for permission to remit funds to the French miners' organisations; and whether the applications have been approved.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. Since I approved the original application on behalf of the National Union of Mine Workers (Scottish Area) last December for a remittance of £1,000 there have been two further applications, one by the same body to remit £520 and the other by the Coventry Colliery Miners' Lodge to remit £13 10s. The former application was made early in December and the latter at the beginning of January and, after calling for and studying evidence that the first remittance had in fact been spent on the charitable objects for which it was intended, I have authorised the transmission of the sums in question.
I should like, however, to take this opportunity of making it clear that I would not be disposed to approve any further applications for the transmission to France of contributions to funds organised under Communist auspices, even though their purpose is to help miners suffering as a consequence of the strikes last December. As the House is aware, I am not in general prepared to approve contributions made to organisations whose activities are hostile to democracy. It is never easy in cases of this kind to draw the line between primarily charitable and primarily political donations. In my view, however, there is a real difference between remittances arising from the natural and laudable desire to send money to relieve the distress of foreign fellow workers during a widespread strike and any subsequent applications to remit funds after the strike is over. In the present instance with the great majority of French miners back in work, the need for charitable subventions from this country is much less evident and such remittances assume much more the guise of contributions


designed to facilitate the activities of a Communist dominated organisation. I am therefore not prepared to look with favour upon them.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that many hundreds of the miners who were on strike are in prison, and that their wives and children are in absolute destitution? Does he mean to say that a helping hand to these women and children is a Communist conspiracy? Is that what he has got down to?

Mr. Nicholson: Would it not be much better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted his mistake in his declared intention of administering Exchange control on a political basis?

Sir S. Cripps: No, I certainly do not think it would be better. I have to exercise my discretion. I have done it, and I have told the House how I have done it.

Mr. Stanley: Although I agree largely with the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, will he explain why, if he holds those views, he has sanctioned these last two payments?

Sir S. Cripps: Because they were asked for at the time of the strike. They had been held up owing to my inquiries whether the former payments had been properly disbursed. As they were asked for at the time the strike was on, it was reasonable, having satisfied myself with regard to the earlier payments, that these two should be allowed through.

Earl Winterton: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, among the charitable objects to which he referred, was the saving of a man's life from tubercular infection, as in the case of Mr. Heron?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not know. I have not had any details of such a case amongst the miners.

Defence Bonds

Mr. T. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider raising the maximum holdings in Defence Bonds 2½ per cent. from £2,500 to £3.500 which will assist the National Savings Committee.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Local Government Manpower Committee

Mr. Cooper: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now give the names of the chairman and members of the Local Government Manpower Committee; when it is expected that it will complete its investigation; what are the reasons for not making the report public; and what considerations were taken into account in deciding to set up an interdepartmental committee in preference to a select committee.

Sir S. Cripps: I will circulate the names of the chairman and members of this committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As will be seen it is a joint body of representatives of central and local government. It is impossible to say when it will complete its investigations, but I hope that results of its work may be announced from time to time. This joint body is engaged in working out the solution of day-to-day administrative problems; a select committee would not have been an appropriate body for such a purpose.

Mr. Cooper: Would not the Chancellor agree that an indispensable contribution could be made to the work of this Committee by independent Members who have experience in local and national government affairs; would he consider adding to the Committee those people who have such experience outside the Civil Service; and would he also give an assurance that the report will be published in due time?

Sir S. Cripps: No. The general opinion of the local government representatives particularly was that it was more likely that we should get fruitful results if the Committee consisted only of those of whom I have already spoken.

Following are the names:

Chairman

P. D. Proctor, Esq., C.B.—Treasury.

Vice-Chairman

Sir Arthur L. Hobhouse, J.P.—Chairman, County Councils Association (England and Wales).

Members

Sir John C. Wrigley, K.B.E., C.B.—Ministry of Health.
Sir William Cleary, K.B.E., C.B.—Ministry of Education.
J. R. Willis, Esq., M.C.—Ministry of Transport.
W. S. Murrie, Esq., C.B.—Home Office.


Dame Evelyn Sharp, D.B.E.—Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
Sir Harold H. Wiles, K.B.E., C.B.—Ministry of Labour and National Service.
A. Hibbs, Esq.—Post Office.
W. Armstrong, Esq., M.V.O.—Treasury.
Lieut.-Colonel H. Shiner, Sir Sidney M. Johnson—County Councils Associations.
Alderman Sir Miles E. Mitchell, J.P., G. H. Banwell, Esq.—Association of Municipal Corporations.
F. L. Snow, Esq., S. L. Meggeson, Esq., A. J. Lees, Esq., C.B.E.—Urban District Councils Association.
N. Hobson, Esq., The Rev. R. A. Giles, J. J. McIntyre, Esq.—Rural District Councils Association.
W. G. Boys, Esq., H. Brooke, Esq., J. R. Howard Roberts, C.B.E.—London County Council.
Alderman N. G. M. Prichard, Sir Parker Morris—Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee.
Dr. W. P. Alexander—Association of Education Committees.

Joint Secretaries

E. W. Maude, Esq.—Treasury.
D. Somerville, Esq.—Ministry of Health.

Prices and Profits

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the lack of response of the Federation of British Industries to his written request of last February for a scheme for the reduction of prices and profits, he will now renew that request.

Sir S. Cripps: The request for a voluntary reduction of prices and so of profits which I made at the time of the issue of the White Paper on Personal Incomes was addressed to the country generally including all those concerned with wholesale and retail distribution. It is not possible to place any numerical evaluation upon the response to my request but I have had evidence of many price reductions resulting from it and of higher costs absorbed into prices without increase. I hope that everyone is aware of the need to continue to do everything possible to reduce prices especially by increasing productivity as this point has been constantly stressed throughout the year.

Mr. Chamberlain: But has not my right hon. and learned Friend overlooked the fact that he asked the F.B.I. specifically, for a plan for price and profit decreases, and that they gave him no plan but merely threw him a worthless bone of dividend limitation, dividends already being far too high?

Sir S. Cripps: There were two matters with which I asked the F.B.I. to deal. One was to get a limitation on any increase in dividends, which they have done, and which has been largely if not wholly successful; secondly, to take what steps they could—and other bodies like the Co-operatives and so on—to see that any price reductions that were possible Were brought about. That they also did, and a large number of price reductions resulted.

Government Offices (Women Cleaners)

Mr. Chamberlain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Government's decision to award salary increases up to an additional £24 a week to civil servants already in receipt of four-figure incomes, he will now arrange for a review of the award of one farthing an hour increase to cleaners in Government offices.

Sir S. Cripps: No recent award has been made in respect of the pay of women cleaners in Government offices. Their pay will be reviewed by an impartial and representative body—the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal—on 14th March and, should that Tribunal recommend any revision, effect will be given to its award.

Mr. Chamberlain: If my right hon. and learned Friend is not taking any immediate steps in the matter of the farthing, could he not agree that these other increases are quite at variance with the spirit of the White Paper on Incomes of a year ago? Is it not also at variance with the spirit of equity and the Socialist principles which he and I profess?

Mr. Nigel Birch: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been reading the articles of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) in the "Daily Worker"?

Sir Arthur Salter: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind the need not to allow an excessive discrimination against the Civil Service as compared with the higher appointments not only in private industry, but under nationalisation?

Command Paper 2682 (1926)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury


whether, in view of the continuing importance of the matters disclosed in Command Paper 2682 of 1926, he will arrange for this Command Paper to be reprinted and made readily available to the public.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Copies are available and the need for reprinting does not arise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of certain of his hon. Friends to the relevance of these documents which disclose the Communist technique of penetration in the trade unions?

Purchase Tax

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the memorandum dated 15th December, 1948, submitted to him by the Purchase Tax Joint Standing Committee of the Paper, Printing and Stationery trades; and what action he proposes to take.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) on 27th January.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Economic Secretary aware that that reply conveys the minimum of information, and that if anything useful is to be done in the Budget, a preliminary statement will have to be made?

Mr. Turton: asked the Economic Secretary to the Treasury which firms are permitted to pay Purchase Tax on turnover, or are given any other special concessions in the mode of payment of Purchase Tax.

Mr. Jay: No firms are given any special concessions in the mode of payment.

Statutory Instruments

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many, Statutory Instruments were made during January, 1949; how many were revoked; and how many expired.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The figures are as follow:


Statutory Instruments made in January, 1949
167


Statutory Instruments revoked in January, 1949
15


Statutory Instruments expired in January, 1949
6

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that answer with the statement made by the Lord President of the Council on 3rd February that for quite a long time now there has been a steady diminution in the number and stringency of controls?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I could, but the Question does not ask me to do so.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the continued complaints from the public that they are unable to obtain a number of the Statutory Rules and Regulations issued by the Government throughout 1948, which are now out of print, he will now give further consideration to making an adequate supply available.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member continues to make an assertion unsupported by evidence. No Statutory Instrument of 1948 is out of print and the Stationery Office has had no complaint on the subject.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury aware that that is quite unjust and untrue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] There are numbers of these regulations which are out of print. They come into print and they go out of print. Will he do something about them or, better still, wash out the regulations as unworkable?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think I have asked the hon. Gentleman to let me have details of any that he thinks are out of print. If he will do that, I will see what can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Israel

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade what special facilities are now being provided to enable British commercial interests to compete for and obtain a fair share of the increasing imports in the State of Israel.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): Steps are being taken to provide all normal facilities.

Newsprint

Sir B. Neven-Spence: asked the President of the Board of Trade why newspapers which began publication after 16th August, 1940, are not allowed to share in the increased allocation of newsprint which was recently announced.

Mr. J. Edwards: The recent increase in the amount of paper which may be used by newspapers has only served to bring them back to the position which existed in the first half of 1947. The supplies available do not at present allow us to make any general concession to new publications which are allowed to use 8 cwt. or less of paper in a four-months' period; the position is being kept under review.

Fine Cotton Spinning (Orders)

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that many textile mills engaged on fine cotton spinning are short of orders and are producing for stock; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Edwards: No, Sir; my information is that there is no general lack of business for fine spinning mills and that any mills which are short of orders must be exceptional cases. It is not, of course, unusual for a small proportion of production to be put into stock, but if my hon. Friend would care to furnish me with further details I should be glad to look into them.

Mr. Lewis: Would the Parliamentary Secretary look into the position in those areas where fine cotton spinning is being carried on, when he will find, I think, that the information on which the Question is based is quite true?

Mr. Edwards: I have already looked into the position in respect of fine spinning and I can find no evidence to support the view which my hon. Friend has put forward. If he will give me details I will look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Captain John Crowder: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to ask for your guidance on a matter of which I have given you private notice. Yesterday at Question Time you called Question Number 45 in the name of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). He was not in his place and, therefore, did not receive an oral answer. I always understood that in such circumstances, the answer appeared in HANSARD under the heading of "Written Answers." In this case, however, no such answer appears in HANSARD and I should be grateful for your guidance whether this Question may or may not be put down again in the same form as it appeared yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: I also have noticed this omission and have looked at HANSARD myself. The fact of the matter was that the House rose rather early yesterday and the answers did not arrive from the office of the Attorney-General before the House had risen. It has been received now and will appear in HANSARD as a Written Answer in due course. The reason was the early rising of the House. The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly correct. The Question was called, it was not asked and, therefore, the answer goes down as a Written Answer and not as an Oral Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN

Alfred Davis Devonsher Broughton, esquire, for the Borough of Batley and Morley.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL

"to confirm and give effect to Terms of Union agreed between Canada and Newfoundland," presented by Mr. P. Noel-Baker; supported by the Prime Minister and Mr. Herbert Morrison; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 107.

Division No. 66.]
AYES
[335 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Albu, A. H.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Parker, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Guy, W. H.
Parkin, B. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Hale, Leslie
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pearson, A.


Attewell, H. C.
Hardman, D. R.
Piratin, P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Austin, H. Lewis
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Harrison, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Ayles, W. H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Bacon, Miss A.
Hicks, G.
Randall, H. E.


Balfour, A
Holman, P.
Ranger, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Rankin, J.


Barton, C
Horabin, T. L.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Battley, J. R.
Hoy, J.
Reeves, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Rhodes, H.


Beswick, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Richards, R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale.)
Hughes, H.D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Binns, J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Blackburn, A. R.
Janner, B.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Blyton, W. R.
Jay, D. P. T.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exoh'ge)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Segal, Dr. S.


Bramall, E. A.
Jeger, Dr. s. w. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Brooks, D. (Halifax)
Jenkins, R. H.
Sharp, Granville


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Johnston, Douglas
Shurmer, P.


Brown, George (Belper)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Simmons, C. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Keenan, W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Burke, W. A.
Kendall, W. D.
Skinnard, F. W.


Broughton, A. D. D.
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Callaghan, James
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Carmichael, James
Kirby B. V.
Snow, J. W.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Stamford, W.


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Steele, T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lewis, J (Bolton)
Stross, Dr. B.


Coldrick, W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Stubbs, A. E.


Collindridge, F.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lipson, D. L.
Swingler, S.


Cooper, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sylvester, G. O.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Longden, F.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lyne, A. W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McAdam, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
McEntee, V. La. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Timmons, J.


Deer, G.
Mack, J. D.
Tolley, L.


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McKinlay, A. S.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Dumpleton, C. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Dye, S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wadsworth, G.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Walker, G. H.


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Edward, John (Blackburn)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N.(Caerphilly)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
West, D. G.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Medland, H. M.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mellish, R. J.
Wigg, George


Farthing, W. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Follick, M.
Monslow, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Foot, M. M.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morley, R.
Willis, E.


Freeman, J. (Warford)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mort, D. L.
Woods, G. S.


Gilzean, A.
Moyle, A.
Yates, V. F.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Murray, J. D.
Young, Sir. R. (Newton)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Murray, J. D. 
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Nally, W.



Greenwood, A. W. J, (Heywood)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grey, C. F.
Nicholls, H. R.(Stratford)
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.


Grierson, E.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)








NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Barlow, Sir J.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Raikes, H. V.


Beechman, N. A.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr.Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Robertson, Sir D, (Streatham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Roland


Braithwaite, Lt -Comdr. J. G.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Channon, H.
Linstead, H. N.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


De la Bère, R.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Drayson, G. B.
McFarlane, C. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
MacLeod, J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Macpilerson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Erroll, F. J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollock)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorse E.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Glyn, Sir R.
Mellor, Sir J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Dunean, Col. A.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
York, C.


Grimstort, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.



Harden, J. R. E.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Nicholson, G.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Haughton, S. G.
Odey, G. W.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The main purpose of this short Bill is to improve naval defence arrangements in the British colonial territories and to modernise the Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1931. The House will be aware that Colonial naval forces, whether regular or part time, are raised in the Colonies themselves on their own authority by means of their own ordinances. The Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1931, authorises Colonies, with the approval of His Majesty in Council to provide for the maintenance and use of vessels of war, for the application of United Kingdom enactments regarding discipline, for the liability of members of any forces to service and training in any territory in which the force is raised, and for the forces to become part of the Royal Naval Reserve or the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, but the Act of 1931 applied only to the Colonies. It did not apply to Protectorates or Protected States or Trust Territories, nor does it enable Colonies to act together in raising naval forces in each other's territorial waters.
Obviously these are difficulties in these modern times, when Colonies act together and also when alongside Colonies, contiguous with them, are Trust Territories and Protected States. Uganda is a Protected State and Tanganyika is a Trust Territory and such limitations hamper the creation of those services which they regard as an essential part of defence. Since 1931 there have been developed in the Empire organisations for the better government of groups of territory and for the creation of common services, and there is in at least one case already a common legislature for certain defined purposes, including defence, created from a number of territories, one a Trust Territory another a Protectorate and another a Colony.
The creation of the Central Assembly in East Africa, for instance, which has

some responsibility for the High Commission which is charged with the defence arrangements in respect of East Africa, has not suitable power, so far as the naval aspect is concerned, to undertake its responsibilities in that particular regard. It is important, therefore, that Parliament should give the requisite powers so that where necessary there can be a combination of territories to undertake this kind of defence and that Governments, through the new organs which have been created over regions, may be able to fulfil their responsibilities in regard to this provision.
In the Bill we propose that a number of Colonies may jointly raise a naval force and that the power of raising a force should not be limited to a single Colony. It is also obvious that where territories are too small and their resources limited, sometimes the naval requirements can be better organised by a joint effort of a number of Colonies together. It is something of an anomaly that, in making these arrangements, Protected territories and Trust Territories are not covered by the 1931 Act, The principal Act of 1931 is, therefore, under this Bill made to apply to any territory not forming part of His Majesty's Dominions, but which is a territory in which His Majesty has jurisdiction. It is also necessary, where defence can itself be better organised, that the principal Act should apply to a group of territories enjoying a common legislature with powers to legislate for the defence of that group. Moreover, where such provision for defence is made, the Act should include any inland waters as well as territorial waters. That is to say, in the case of Uganda, where there is Lake Victoria, or Nyasaland with Lake Nyasa, it should be possible for efficient and effective naval forces to operate on those lakes.
There are two other points in the Bill which I should mention. The first concerns the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. It should be possible for any such Colonial force created in this way to form part of any division of these two Reserves, that is, that they may form part of the Royal Fleet Reserve. That was not made plain by the 1931 Act. The second point is really a matter of procedure. Under the Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1931, the Colonial legislature must first provide for raising the force, and only after


approval has been given by Order in Council can it provide, by a further ordinance, for making the members of the force subject to the enactment and to the regulations for the enforcing of discipline in the Royal Navy, for making them liable for service and training outside the limits of the Colony, and for providing that they should form part of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.
After such an Order in Council has been made there has to be a further enactment embodying what is provided for in the Order. We wish to avoid this duplication of enactment and to prevent undue delay in the granting of these powers. It is suggested that by naming the powers of Section 2 (1) of the Act of 1931 in advance of, but subject to, the approval of an Order in Council, the appropriate provisions can be enacted in the Colony in one enactment. Thus the procedure in the Colony can be shortened and simplified. Instead of the matter being dealt with in the legislature by two enactments, one under its inherent powers for raising the force and the latter one for applying to the force the provisions of the Act of 1931, it need only be dealt with once by a single enactment, but no legislation applying the provisions of the Act will have effect unless and until it is approved by His Majesty in Council.
We are anxious to improve our naval arrangements in the various Colonial regions of the world. Particularly in East Africa, in Malayan waters and in various places, the people are eager for new opportunities for securing efficient and effective defence services. During the war some of the Colonial naval forces played a very important part, and were of great assistance to the Royal Navy. We are not suggesting that the present responsibilities and powers of the Royal Navy should be lessened in any way. Rather, we want to create effective supplementary forces, and we wish the Colonies to have the power to see that these services are created as efficiently as possible. As I have said, this is a short Bill. It has already received approval in another place. I have tried to explain its principal purposes, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We on the Opposition benches welcome this

Bill and are glad that the Government have introduced it. This is not the first Bill to be improved in another place, and we are glad that that improvement has taken place. Those of us who had the privilege of serving in the war in the British Navy alongside our fellow-subjects in the Colonies are glad that this Bill will give increased opportunities of Imperial service to many of our fellow citizens in the Empire.
It is the logical successor to the old Colonial Defence Acts of 1865, 1909 and 1931. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, in part it cleans and tidies up the 1931 Act, and it allows for new and changed institutions in the Empire which did not exist in 1931. Above all, it recognises the development of Imperial grouping. It recognises in the existence of joint legislatures which now, by one Act, instead of by the old difficult system of parallel legislation, can create joint naval forces. Secondly, it enables a Colony to operate and have discipline over Colonial forces in the territorial waters of another Colony. Also, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it now applies for the first time to British Protectorates the principle of this Bill.
Lastly, instead of the old and rather cumbersome administrative process, we now have provision for a single Act of the Colonial legislature, and there is no longer any doubt that an Order in Council is not necessary before a Colony can legislate in naval matters, though, of course, that is still necessary before the legislation can become effective. Of the results of the Bill, much the most important from the Imperial point of view is the recognition of Imperial grouping. We have, in East Africa—in Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar—the East African Central Assembly. As a result of this Bill, to which we wish every success, it will be possible for a single Act of that Assembly to set up an East African Naval Force.
At the moment, when we have just heard about increased provision for the British Fleet our attention is largely turned upon our Imperial naval responsibilities. We wish every success to our fellow-citizens in East Africa, who will for the first time be serving in their own naval forces as part of the Royal Navy, but recruited and disciplined by their own Government, and who will, we believe,


will be based on Mombasa. I hope that when the Minister replies to the Debate he will give us more details of the form which this fleet is likely to take, and some information of the progress which has been made.
As the Secretary of State has said, this Bill will allow an inland territory like Uganda, which is so close to the affections of so many hon. Members, including myself, to join in raising and disciplining a force actually serving in Tanganyikan waters. Let us hope that it will not be long—we should be grateful for information—until a similar force can be created in West Africa. To indicate the many opportunities that lie ahead, there is the defence of Sierra Leone, which played such an important part in the last war. These considerations apply in vital measure to the naval needs of Malaya, Fiji, Hong Kong and other Colonies.
As the House well knows, the British Colonies have in previous years substantially helped the Empire with men and money. All sailors will remember H.M.S. "Malaya," and all of us also remember the enormous monetary contributions by the Colonial Empire to our joint defence in the last war. No less than £14 million was subscribed by the Colonies alone. Large forces also were raised. The local troops raised in the British Colonies increased in number from some 40,000 when the war started to nearly half a million when the war ended. Of this half-million some 15,000 were seamen, most of them, of course, being land forces.
This will give them a navy of their own. In addition to the knowledge that they have subscribed to the Imperial Navy, they will have the ever-present fact of the ships bearing local names, and being manned locally and, possibly, in the case of Hong Kong, built locally—certainly, we hope, serviced locally. That will be an ever present reminder of our Imperial heritage and of our joint interest. We in this House and in the country remember vividly what happened through our temporary loss of sea power in the war and the effect of this temporary loss on British Colonies. Not least was this so in Burma where the tragic consequences of temporary weakness remains in this and future generations as a warning to us.
We wish good luck to all who are to serve in these fleets. We welcome those

of our fellow subjects who will from now on serve in the Royal Navy as members of their own Colonial Forces. They and we can help the British Empire to recover its old position in the world. Together we may once more find the truth of the lesson of Napoleon, that if England sticks to the sovereignty of the seas she may send her ambassadors to the courts of Europe and demand what she pleases.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Austin: No one can cavil at the apparent intent of the Colonial Secretary as contained in the Bill, to further the self-supporting form of government in the Colonies. Alongside all those other provisions in many other directions, industry, welfare and betterment, this Bill falls into its natural place. But with all respect to my right hon. Friend he has not told us very much. In fact, he has told us as little as émerged from the Debate in another place.
As I understand it, the original Bill enabled the Colonial Governments to provide for the maintenance and the use of warships and general Service matters, and now we seek to amend that by enabling the Colonies—and bringing in the Trusts and Dependencies—to make a larger contribution. I am afraid that my own contribution now must be in an interrogatory form. What is the larger contribution that we are to ask the Colonies and the Dependencies to make? The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) commented on the setting up of forces in West Africa, in Fiji, Hong Kong and so on. The question which naturally arises is of what character are these forces to be? There is this point to be borne in mind. If we are to go on with our intention—and it is a very commendable one—of helping the Colonies and the Dependencies to prosperity and self-government, as this Government is already doing, we must watch very carefully that the financial burdens of this Bill, and perhaps other defence matters that may fall to be considered in the near future, will not cripple the programme that the Colonial Secretary envisages.
My first question on the Bill itself is, who will be responsible for the training of these Colonial Forces? I understand from a brief reading of what has


already been discussed, that certain retired officers and ratings of the Royal Navy are to be seconded to help in the training and administration of these Colonial forces. There is this point to be considered; if they are retired men they may not be quite as conversant with up-to-date methods as those who have served in the Navy recently. In regard to the training of the natives themselves, is there to be some form of interchangeability? Are these natives to be permitted to man their own ships? Are they to be permitted to come to this country under a training scheme and to be introduced—I do not suppose in any great volume—to Dartmouth; and will those who are fitted, go to Greenwich and Portsmouth, and other naval establishments, to undergo a sound basic naval training in this country?
What is the programme envisaged in these Colonies. What are the ships to be? What harbour provisions has my right hon. Friend in mind? What are the forms of dockyard development that he envisages and what is the scope of duty? I am rather at a loss to account for the services for which these Colonial forces are intended. Are the activities of these small naval forces to be coastal patrol, or harbour duties or anti-piracy duties in the Far East, or is it intended to expand our overseas naval activities on a full scale basis? Are we to see the development not only of aircraft-carrier stations in the Colonies but the development of a naval air arm, with landing grounds and all the ancillaries, in certain parts of the Colonies? These are important matters. Are we to see the development of completely new submarine stations in the Far East and in certain parts of Africa?
Then one must ask, in view of the proposals in the Bill, and the discussion which has already taken place on it, is the cost of all this to be met by the Colonies? In the circumstances of today I cannot imagine the Colonies being able to pay for the necessary development envisaged in the Bill. Can we say that Uganda, or the West Indies, in their present economic state, can afford to pay? There has been no mention by the Colonial Secretary that this Government is to share the responsibility for the financial burden that will fall on these Colonies and Dependencies.

I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend, when he replies, will tell us something of the financial liabilities that these Colonies and Dependencies are to undertake, and whether it is intended in the future to help them in shouldering their part of the burden and their share of the responsibility.

4.8 p.m.

Commander Maitland: I hope that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) will not mind if I follow him, because in point of fact a good many of the things he has raised I shall be discussing and my speech may to some extent dovetail into what he has said. One point he raised was on the question of finance. He will remember that in the main Bill there is provision for this Parliament to vote the money, if necessary, to assist in certain ways in the development of naval activities in the Colonial Empire.
Like every other hon. Member in the House, I welcome this Bill. The only criticism I have of the speech of the Colonial Secretary is that he said it was a short Bill. That is so, but it is a very important Bill. I think it must be realised by the people in the Colonies that we in this House of Commons regard it as a most important Measure. The Colonial Secretary, perhaps inadvertently, put a somewhat wrong interpretation on what this Bill actually has done. I read the original Bill—now the Act of 1931—and the Debate on it, and it appears to me quite clear that many of the main things that this Bill now does were considered by Parliament to have been done by that Measure when it was first introduced. I noticed an interruption by Admiral Beamish who was then a Member of the House and who is the father of a present Member. He asked whether Protectorates were considered to be included. There was no answer from the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. What a pity he did not answer then. This Bill is of great importance. The fact that we are members of a great Empire gives us tremendous strategic advantages if we take note of them and make our preparations carefully. But those very same advantages may turn terribly to our disadvantage if we do not pay sufficient attention to them now.
I should like to know what arrangements it is proposed to make in the form


of a central advisory committee to advise Colonies how best to integrate their forces for the defence of the Empire as a whole. The old story in Aesop's Fables applies here. The sticks when divided were broken; together they were unbreakable. That will always be the story of the British Empire. Much money and effort may be wasted by Colonies under this Bill if they do not have a central, wise, advisory direction from this country. We who have served in the Royal Navy understand and know the Colonies probably better than most people. We know the great affection which the people of the Colonies have for this country. We are sure that if wise advice is offered, it will be accepted and understood. At the moment the Colonies are clamouring to be taken into the secret on the subject of defence. We in this House sometimes clamour about that too, and we seldom get the information we require. In taking the opportunities which this Bill offers, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the Colonies into his confidence.
We shall be responsible very largely for the training of these Colonial forces. I want to know exactly how we are to tackle that problem. Are we going to give them new and decent equipment? If we do not, a great deal of our effort will be wasted. There must be plenty of good equipment available. It is no use trying to train men with out-of-date stuff. I hope, too, that it will be possible to take large bodies of men, similar to the old R.N.V.R. groups in the days before the war, and give them full training in the British Navy. That would be of great advantage both to ourselves and to them. They would gain a great educational experience. Their minds would be widened by service in the Navy. I am sure that training on those lines would be of great benefit to the defence of the Empire as a whole. If possible, I should like to see ships of sufficient size lent to those Colonies which are large enough to be able to take advantage of them so that training may be given on board ship. From some points of view, that is rather expensive, but it might well be worth while.
It would be excellent if the Colonial navies themselves could take over to some extent the part of messengers of the Empire which the Royal Navy has performed for so long. Then, through

service in the Navy, the men of different Colonies would get to know each other as members of an Empire team. Also on the subject of training, I hope that it will be possible for active service officers and instructors to be loaned to the Colonial navies. The Army has a scheme of that kind in the West African Rifles. Surely the Navy should not fall behind. I should like to see officers and men frequently changed so that an interest and understanding would be set up between the Colonies and the British Navy.
The Royal Navy is becoming ever more closely interlinked with the Royal Air Force. I have not been able to discover whether similar arrangements to those contained in this Bill, have been made with the Royal Air Force. I know that there is an annual Army and Air Force Bill which may cover this, but I should like an assurance on the point. Where defence is concerned the duties of the Forces are closely intermingled. It is no good setting about this business in regard to the Navy only, if the scheme does not include co-operation between the three Services. Aircraft carriers are becoming much smaller. The air is becoming more important to the Navy and in the future we may see the Colonial navies operating small aircraft carriers or, at any rate, constructing seaplane bases. I should like to know whether provision is made to overcome any difficulties which may arise if Colonial administrations have no power to raise their own Air Forces.
I should like an assurance that though this is a small Bill, it goes a great deal further than would appear. I want to hear the Government tell the House that they are taking seriously the question of bringing the great advantages of our Empire to succour this country and the Empire itself in defence. Most of all, I want to hear that the Government intend to take the Colonial Empire into their confidence in this matter and to tell them exactly what is expected of them.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: I agree with much that was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). I agree with him particularly when he denies the suggestion which appeared to be made by the Front Bench, that this is a very little


unimportant Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with him and with the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin)——

Mr. Creech Jones: I hope that nothing I have said suggested that the Bill was unimportant. I said that it was a very short Bill, but it is extremely important.

Mr. Chamberlain: I am extremely glad to have that assurance. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not use those words earlier. Now he has told us that this is a very important Bill. It was introduced in another place as being a small Bill, but that statement was rather revised later by the Minister, who admitted that it was a Bill of some importance.
We are entitled to a good deal more explanation from the Minister when he replies, about the basic policy behind this extension of Colonial naval power. The Bill itself is not quite as modest as the Minister seemed to me to suggest. It is called:
An Act to make further provision for the naval defence of overseas territories.
That is not anything which is minute and merely consolidating. It makes further and wide provision, and we are entitled to know more about it. As the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle said, it would be something of a slight to the Colonies if we passed over this Measure too lightly and too easily. I think the Minister referred to building up Colonial naval power, but he really told us very much less about the Bill as a whole than we can learn by reading the Debate in another place.
Apparently, what we envisage is the building up of naval forces in various spheres of the world. East Africa has been mentioned in particular, and I am not quite sure where we are getting to in all these matters. It seems to me that we are to have the development of warships on Lake Nyasa and Lake Victoria, and that a naval force is also to be built up in West Africa. There is also talk of the Malayans building up a naval force at Singapore, with assistance from this side of the world; and there is to be a naval force at Fiji, if there is not one there already. Hong Kong and the West Indies are also mentioned.
All these things taken together amount to something which is very far from

being unimportant, and I want to know where we are getting to in this matter, what is the policy in regard to the building up of these Colonial naval forces, and, indeed, how that policy is to be integrated into the Colonial and naval policy of the Government in the widest sphere. I am rather alarmed where all this is leading, because we were assured in the Debate in the House of Lords, if we have not been here, that there is to be the most up-to-date equipment of these forces. If that means all the most objectionable and undesirable features of naval warfare, if we are going to have natives linked up with submarine warfare and deep-sea fighting——

Captain Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "natives"? I am a native of this country.

Mr. Chamberlain: The residents in the various Colonies, if that is preferred. I, too, am a native, and I do not mind a little bit, but I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is so touchy about it.

Mr. Follick: They are touchy.

Mr. Chamberlain: We are told that there is to be the most up-to-date equipment, and the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) has referred to the possibility of naval aircraft, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) mentioned landing grounds. These are matters which we want to hear more about and. certainly, in the Debate in the House of Lords, we were given to understand that the latest technical developments will be brought into play in regard to these Colonial naval developments.
There is also the question of cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford assumed that all the cost was to be borne by the Colonial Governments, although I think that is not the case. If I read the House of Lords Debate correctly, it certainly seems that a degree of the cost will fall upon them, but I gathered that the cost of equipping new naval units will be borne by this country, although I should be glad if the Minister would further enlighten us on that subject. We ought to know something about the cost to be borne by this country and what


part will be borne by the Colonial Governments. Those Governments themselves will also want to have this information.
With regard to the developments in Fiji and elsewhere in the Pacific, Hong Kong is involved there, and, in a secondary way, Singapore. We are kept very much in the dark in regard to our policy in the Pacific generally, and more particularly with regard to our naval policy. I have tried on more than one occasion to get some glimmer of light or information from the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Defence in regard to our policy in the Pacific, and I am rather alarmed about it. At a recent Commonwealth Conference, I tried to get the information, and I asked our friends from the Commonwealth to tell me their views on this matter. I tried to get the delegates from Australia and New Zealand to talk, but I could get nothing from them. It may be that they also are very much in the dark, because we are very elusive in regard to our policy, and that is a bad thing. We ought to know more about it.
What did emerge quite clearly from that conference was that our friends from the Commonwealth—Australia, New Zealand, and, indeed, India—seemed to feel that we were relying very much on American naval power in the Pacific. That may be necessary, as has been suggested in other quarters; I do not know whether it is or not, but we should have some more information about it from the Government. Certainly, it is closely related to this matter of building up in these Colonial territories our own local naval forces. We should not be left in the dark whether our new Colonial naval forces are to develop in isolation or are to develop with the backing of the Royal Navy or that of the American Navy.
We ought to have more information on that point, particularly in view of the undoubted naval strength of America in the Pacific. I have in mind particularly the strategic areas of the Marshall Islands, the Marianas and the Carolines, which were formerly Japanese mandated islands, and which are now specially protected under Article 83 of the Charter. That is only one indication of the enormous American naval power in the Pacific, and, if we are to take these steps of building up Pacific naval bases,

we should know more about it. Incidentally, in the Debate in the House of Lords, we were informed that our own Navy will always be suitably disposed to safeguard the Colonies. That seems to indicate a line of thought in regard to the Pacific as well as elsewhere, and we ought to be told more about it. The Governments of the Colonies will also expect to know something about it.
Finally, although this Bill is in some ways a small matter, it is in other respects very important, and, in asking for this information and in expressing fears where this Colonial naval policy is to lead, I yield to none in my admiration of what was done by the Colonial forces in the last War. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) expressed his admiration for the support which they gave us, and I entirely agree with him. But we must legitimately ask for a good deal more information on where our policy is leading, and, particularly, how it is to be integrated with our general naval policy, whether in the Pacific or elsewhere.

4.29 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) seems to be very alarmed about this Bill, and I am not quite certain whether he is in favour of it or against it.

Mr. Chamberlain: May I make it quite clear that, although there is nothing wrong with the terms of the Bill, I do ask that the background policy behind it should be more clearly explained?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: There are many questions which will no doubt be answered by the Minister who is to reply, but the general policy surely is—and there can be no doubt about it—that we desire and shall be very grateful for the help of the Colonies in rendering such assistance as they can on the general question of the naval defence of the Empire. It has been said that this is a very small Bill, but I would reiterate that it is a most important Bill as regards the future policy of our Imperial defence. It is going to have a beginning now, but no one can foresee how far it will spread, or how important will be the units which the Colonies provide. We hope they will be most important, and I am sure that, as time goes on, they will render more and


more assistance in Imperial defence in general. We know what immense help the Colonial Empire gave us in the two great wars. We also know what help we received from the Colonies in peacetime. The fact has already been mentioned, as far as Malaya is concerned, that it presented the magnificent battleship "Malaya" to this country. It also gave an immense donation towards the construction of the base at Singapore. Other Colonies, also, have made contributions in kind to help Imperial defence.
We are now going farther in this Bill. The position is being changed, and a very good thing too. The Colonies have recognised their responsibility for doing all they can to assist in Imperial defence, and in order to do that they will now create naval units of their own, individually or in combination with each other. They will thereby create real naval forces in peace time so that training can be carried out, and so that, if war should unfortunately come, they will be ready to take their place and to play their part in Imperial defence. It has been asked what advice is being given to the Colonies as to what they should do and how they should do it. There can be no suggestion that each Colony will go off on its own and do this or that. No doubt they will work in the closest co-operation with the Imperial Government in that respect.
The question of training is one of the utmost importance. The Minister gave the House very little information about training, equipment, and so on. I am sorry he did not give a great deal more. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) said that he hoped active service officers would be employed. It is of the utmost importance that special officers should be chosen for this work. They should not be too old but young men, able and keen on their work, and to educate and control the Colonists in the naval work they will have to carry out. I should like the Minister to tell us what equipment is to be provided for the Colonies. It is absolutely essential that they should have the latest equipment. They should have craft of all kinds necessary for their particular work, minesweeping, etc. It is no good their being trained merely in barracks ashore; they must have practical training at sea in order that they may become

efficient in the work to be carried out by them in time of war.
Pay and conditions of service must be such as will attract the very best recruits. We want the best officers and men we can get. I hope that the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle with regard to training will be carried out. As in the R.N.V.R., the units of these Colonies should be sent on board H.M. ships. When I was at sea, we constantly had R.N.V.R. units coming aboard for a fortnight or three weeks training. Those officers and men took part in the work of the ship. It did them an immense amount of good; it increased their efficiency, and it increased the liaison between those in the R.N.V.R. and those in the Regular Service. As far as the Colonists are concerned, it is of even more importance that those in the Royal Navy and those in the Colonial Navy should get together in that way. In that respect, of course, the training can be carried out on board the ships at the various stations. I hope that will be done because it is a very important thing. I also think it is important that there should be repair bases provided by these units in order that they may carry out running repairs, docking, and so on.
From a strategical point of view, the formation of these naval units is of tremendous importance. These units and their bases on the West and East coasts of Africa—Singapore, Hong Kong, the West Indies, and the Pacific—are of the utmost importance, scattered as they are all over the world, and, in my opinion, it becomes of more and more importance that the Colonies should work up these naval units of their own in view of the fact that the British Empire is being so drastically and quickly reduced. The more it is reduced, the more important it is that the Colonial Empire should play its part in Imperial Defence.
We all welcome this Bill; it is of transcending importance. It is the first step towards the Colonies rendering practical assistance in time of peace, so that they will be ready in time of war. I congratulate, and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will congratulate, the Colonies on having undertaken this direct responsibility—and a very heavy responsibility it is—for assisting in the general Imperial Defence of the Empire.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I join with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) in asking further questions about the broad strategical aim of this Bill, because we had an exposition by the Secretary of State for the Colonies which seemed to be more metaphysics than naval strategy. I should like to know whether the authorities in the Colonies have been suitably consulted about this Bill, and whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has taken advantage of Earl Baldwin's presence in London at the present time to find out whether this Bill is in any way necessary for the future safety of the Leeward Islands.
I, like the hon. Member for Norwood, would like to have some idea of who is to incur the financial obligations, and what are the financial obligations which we are incurring under this Bill. Is what is visualised under the Bill to be paid for partly by the Colonies and partly by His Majesty's Exchequer, and to what extent are the citizens of these Colonies to be taxed for the purpose of providing this potential navy? Judging from what I have heard and read about the social conditions in the Leeward Islands, I suggest to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that at the present time those islands are in no way fitted to incur further expenditure on a potential navy. I suggest, too, that with our commitments, as shown in the alarming increase of the Naval Estimates which have been submitted today, instead of holding out prospects for further expenditure for the Navy by this country we should be undertaking drastic reductions.
I want to know whether hon. Members who had distinguished careers in the Navy are not thinking too much in terms of the last war. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) talked about naval power and went back to the time of Napoleon, but surely in the years 1949 and 1950 we have to face an entirely new theory of strategy. Why is it necessary to spend money in defence of Sierra Leone? Who is proposing to attack Sierra Leone?
I have heard the defence of our various strategical conceptions repeatedly in this House, and it is always on the assumption that the next enemy is going to be the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

But nobody has yet argued that the U.S.S.R. has anything like a navy which is likely to be of danger to Sierra Leone. Are the natives of Sierra Leone to be asked to tax themselves in order to fight Leninist Communism? Is there not far more danger to the natives of Sierra Leone from disease, poverty and hunger? Why should we say to the natives of Sierra Leone, "Go on; build a big navy; it is just the sort of thing that is needed in the world of today, because we had something like it in the time of Napoleon"? Take Fiji. Why do we need to encourage the natives of Fiji to embark on new naval expenditure? I see in the statement on the Naval Estimates provided today, that the last of the Japanese Navy has been liquidated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member is confusing the Debate with the Debate on the Naval Estimates. He must not go too wide.

Mr. Hughes: I have raised these points about various Colonies because they were dealt with by previous speakers. I want the Under-Secretary, if he is to reply, to tell us exactly why we need to encourage naval expenditure in Fiji, Uganda, Hong Kong and the West Indies. We were told about the temporary loss of sea-power during the war, but as far as I can make out these are preparations against some sea-power which is nonexistent. I could understand increasing expenditure in the Antarctic, but I do not know of any great Power which has a navy that wishes to attack Sierra Leone or any of these other Colonial territories.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) asked, quite reasonably, what advice we are giving to the Colonies. I say that the advice of the Government to the Colonies should be, "Spend your money on things which are needed." We should not urge backward peoples, who need all their budget expenditure for education and for dealing with problems of that nature, to spend their money on a navy which is not required on any facts of the present situation.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Before the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) sits down, may I explain that on the question of the advice given by the Government to the various Colonies I was asking in regard, of course, to what


naval units they should provide and in regard to training and ships. It had nothing to do with the general questions he has raised outside naval defence.

4.44 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: We all welcome this Bill, and I think the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will forgive me if I say that I am quite certain it will be welcomed by all Colonies, even Sierra Leone and Fiji, because there are certain advantages in being associated as individual Colonies in a great scheme of this kind. As far as co-ordination is concerned, there is, of course, the Overseas Defence Committee, and I take it that this Committee will be the body which will be made responsible for co-ordination of effort between the various Colonies. Naturally, contact between that Committee and the Chiefs of Staff Committee is very close. I think it is, and I hope the hon. Gentleman, in his reply, will tell us that it is, because it is a point which has been made in various parts of the House and because nobody wishes to see the idiosyncracies of one particular Colony pressed to such an extent as to spoil the unity of the whole.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary a question upon which I hope he will consult with his colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty. Good as is this Bill, I want to know whether it can be made to include the question of sea cadets. Not very long ago I was in West Africa, where I had an opportunity of meeting some of the leaders of the Boy Scout movement and the junior movements generally in those Colonies. They said it was of the greatest importance that we should try to provide for these lads in the Colonies a form of technical training which I believe the Services can give. It is very unfortunate if, in introducing this Bill, we have forgotten the youth side of the problem.
If I may turn to the Naval Estimates for one moment, in reference to this point, I note that in Vote 7, grants are to be made by the Admiralty, but they are apparently limited to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to know whether an Amendment could be made to this Bill to make quite sure that under

Clause 1 (4), power will be given for contributions to be made in accordance with the wishes of the Legislative Councils in the separate Dominions so that technical training can be given to boys which will encourage them, as they are encouraged in this country, to serve efficiently at sea. If that is done, I believe we shall make a tremendous contribution to the assistance of those devoted men who are out there trying to help with the education of youth. It is pathetic now to see little troops of sea scouts, sometimes with an African who served in the Navy or Air Force, trying to introduce those things which are common to boys all over the world. They want to go to camp and to mess about in boats. They want to do all these things. I found two camps established not far from Lagos which Were crowded with African boys. They told me they had asked the Admiralty for an old sloop or something of the kind as a sort of headquarters, but it had always been denied.
We have to do something for youth. Do not let us be mean about it. Not only should we send out technical people but we should send out equipment which interests them, radar and radio for instance, to enable these boys to take their places in the Mercantile Marine. In all this talk of training for defence we are training men to be technicians in a way which will be extremely useful in their careers. I have taken advice and I am afraid that this Bill, as drafted, does not permit assistance to be given to the Colonial youth. If so, that is a tremendous drawback to the Bill. There must be an attempt to put it right on Report stage and, knowing the right hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters, I am quite sure he will see that is done.
The next point I wish to raise with the right hon. Gentleman concerns what contacts, if any, are being made with the shipping companies which trade out to the various Colonies. One of the things which would help these boys very much would be that, after they had attained a certain proficiency, they should be taken into these ships to learn the business of seamanship. When they come to ports in this country, do let the House see that they are properly looked after. It would be a good way of making contacts and recruiting boys for promotion in vessels of the companies


and concerns which are trading with the Colonies.
It is also very important that depôts should be established at suitable strategic points throughout the Colonial Empire. In some cases this has already been done, but what is particularly important is to make individuals in various Colonies feel that they are not only part of the Colony but are part of the general scheme, and that they as individuals can be brought in with confidence to understand what it is all about. No harm will ever be done by telling people what all these things are about, but a great deal of suspicion can be produced by secrecy and pulling down the blinds when it is not necessary.
This is a great Bill, and we should go forward with it, for if we miss this chance we shall be greatly at fault. We are inclined to be rather too anxious over problems of security in these matters, especially when dealing with people who, perhaps, are not as advanced as some of us in this country think we are. They are people who wish to learn and are longing for these opportunities. I suppose there has been nothing of more importance within the last 15 or 25 years than the educational advance of our fellow citizens in the Colonies. Some of us, perhaps, think that the speed has been almost too great, but, at any rate, great as the speed is, it does need help and direction. One of the ways in which that can be done is by a form of discipline to youth which youth accepts as part of the game. That is why, if we can do that, we shall be training up—

Mr. Gallacher: It depends what the game is.

Sir R. Glyn: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is all a game, but that is not the impression that some of us have got. If it is a game, let us be able to play it with the same efficiency as some of the hon. Member's friends who regard it as more than a game. We have reached a stage when I believe we can do something to encourage technical education and help youth so that they can go forward to the next stages—to the Fleet Reserve, the Naval Reserve and all the openings which exist. Let them feel that we want them to come in and play their part fully without any question of colour, creed or anything else.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Follick: I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I like this Bill. In fact, I like anything that strengthens the Empire. We are pouring money into the Empire to provide food for ourselves. We should protect the Empire with all our peoples. There are one or two points to which I should like to refer because I have been in those parts fairly recently. I have had discussions with statesmen in Africa, and I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to Zanzibar. If Zanzibar were to fall into the hands of any enemy, it could be a terrific danger to the military arrangements which we are now making in Kenya.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman say what potential enemy would wish to attack Zanzibar?

Mr. Gallacher: He is getting at me.

Mr. Follick: That is a fair question; there are great movements at present in Asia. Within the next 25 to 30 years the Indian Ocean may very well become of more strategic importance than the Atlantic. That is the reason I am talking about potential enemies.
The Minister has mentioned Mombassa, but he has not mentioned Mikindani, which is a port now in contemplation, and which may be of the greatest importance in African development. There are a couple of important Colonies which were not mentioned and which will probably become of great imperial importance in the future. I refer to Mauritius and the Cocos Islands. If we are to establish an airways service between Australia and South Africa it will have to be over the Cocos Islands and Mauritius. At least one of those Colonies is hardly known; in fact, if I were to ask many hon. Members about the Cocos Islands they would not know anything about them. These two Colonies may become of the utmost importance on account of aviation. I therefore beg the Minister to give his attention to the importance of strategic aviation developments in that part of the world.

Mr. Chamberlain: As the hon. Gentleman seems to think that we are all ignorant about the Cocos Islands, may I ask him whether he knows that there has been a telegraphic station there for 25 years and that I have visited it?

Mr. Follick: I did not say that all hon. Members were ignorant about those places. I am pleased to see that we are making preparations for naval development on Lake Victoria. There has already been one naval battle—a very important battle—fought on an African lake in the 1914–1918 war, and there is no reason why a battle may not be fought there at some future time. We are going to build up one of the most important hydraulic systems in the whole of Africa at Owen Falls, and it may very well be that at some future time, we shall have to defend that part of the world. We should not merely consider what enemies we have now; that is not the way to build up our protection. We have to look forward 25, 30 and 50 years, because it takes that time to develop one's defences.

Mr. Chamberlain: And to build up enemies.

Mr. Follick: At the moment, with the Atlantic Pact and with other sorts of pacts, it looks as if we are going to have enemies.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must point out to hon. Members that this Bill is really authorising Legislative Councils of the Colonies to contribute to the naval defence of the Empire. There are other subjects which are somewhat germane to that, but the hon. Gentleman is going rather wide now.

Mr. Follick: I understood that this Bill related to Colonial and naval defence. However, I submit to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think I have already brought out the most important facts I wanted to mention.

Mr. Chamberlain: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I point out that this Bill is:
to make further provision for the naval defence of overseas territories?
It begins with that categorical statement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I am quite aware of that.

Mr. Follick: You have been very lenient with me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There are a good many other Members who want to speak, but as I have been in those parts so very recently, I thought I would bring this matter to the attention of the House.

5.0 p.m.

Captain Marsden: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) wants to deal with these matters as part of a long-term policy, but I hope he appreciates the fact also that the strength and efficiency of the Royal Navy cannot be brought up to their highest point in a few weeks. That takes many years of training, with hundreds of years of tradition behind them. For that reason, we want to make sure of the naval defence of our overseas possessions against any possible or probable enemy who might come in a year's time, or in 10 years' or 100 years' time.
The interesting thing is that although the Bill is brought in by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, after the Bill has been passed, the Colonial Office will not take such an interest in the situation, as far as I can see, as will the Admiralty. The actual administration of these naval units in different parts of the world will be far more a source of interest from the naval point of view. I fully agree with the numerous questions that have been asked, and I hope they will be answered. I agree with all that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) said, but I wish he would not bring in those Army expressions. What do we know of "seconded" in the Navy? We have plenty of words in the Navy for everything. Let us stick to them. Apart from that remark, I have no fault to find with what he said.
The different Colonies will be glad to build up manpower for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Naval Reserve, that is, for men who have actually served in merchant ships, and for the Royal Fleet Reserve, of men who have actually served in the Royal Navy. Those men will all come in. In addition to serving in their own countries they will be able to serve overseas as they may be directed. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) brought up the question of sea cadets. That is a movement with which I have been associated for many years. In this country, we allow a total number of 50,000, for which a capitation grant is given, but we have not reached that figure yet. Surely we can raise another 50,000 in our numerous Colonies. There are sea cadet units and branches in practically


all the Dominions and Colonies, as my hon. Friend and I have seen for ourselves, and there are many units which one cannot exactly call sea cadets but which are formed for the purpose of getting young boys and giving them some form of naval training, and, which is far more important, naval tradition.
What is the Navy going to do about all this? As has already been said, we must give them good equipment and good instructors. I fully group myself with those who object to the promise, perhaps rather rashly made and without much thought, that the instructors would be retired officers and men. I do not think that we want a rigid hard-and-fast rule. There might be some retired officers and men who would fit in, but these matters have a psychological effect with the Colonies. When we are making this movement and bringing in this Bill, let us tell the Colonies straight that we will give the very best we have, whether it is in men or material. It works both ways. If we send the younger officers through the Colonies to spend a couple of years as instructors they will come back to the Fleet, after having imparted the latest forms of training to the units, with a good knowledge of what those units can do. I ask that on our part we should send out the very best we have. In return, we should ask that they provide men trained up to the highest pitch of efficiency which our Navy wants and seeks.
I do not think that for a long time to come the ordinary Colonial Forces will be able to send ships far away from their own shores. I remember after the last war that distinguished officer Admiral Field was sent to advise on the protection of the British Empire, as we then called it. His advice to most places was: "Don't be too ambitious, but be sure you keep your doorsteps clean" by which he meant that wherever there was a port there should be a safe passage for any ships that might wish to enter. Certainly there could be no more comfortable thought in the mind of commanders of the Fleet than the happy knowledge that those ports are free for our ships to enter, to refit the ships and to refresh the crews.
The chief duty is minesweeping. We do not want out-of-date methods with minesweeping. Mines are the chief threat

now. Mines will be laid, generally speaking, not from minelayers but from aircraft, going in frequently at night and dropping acoustic mines, magnetic mines, and so on. We need the most up-to-date methods of detecting and sweeping mines out. We need these units to ensure a safe passage being kept in all our ports, and that will be a very considerable contribution. I do not suppose that they will get many ships to go overseas for many years yet. Their next big contribution is manpower. That is where the Bill comes in. We can get men for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and other reserves to the best of the Colonies' ability. On top of that, they can go for training in our own Royal Naval ships. When war comes, as we hope it will not, there will be a pretty solid lot of efficient sailors on which we can fall back and who will help to man our Fleet.
I do not know who is going to reply to the Debate. I see the Civil Lord there with a large bundle of briefs under his arm.—[Interruption.]—A, he is not going to do so. What a pity. The chief question in which we are interested is one which he alone can answer. The Colonial Secretary, I say with due respect to him, gives the regularised and legal position and rather informs us of what might be done. What I should like to know is: What will be done?

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: If I followed the argument of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) correctly, he seemed to be making a case for this Measure out of the fact that it will enable us to provide for the inhabitants of the Colonies, a technical and scientific education which would be extremely useful to them. That appeared to me to be a very long way round to make a short cut. Surely we are not to assume that in order to give to the natives of our Colonial Empire a technical and scientific education we have first of all to create a Navy and then, by means of that Navy, to provide the technical and scientific education. It seems to me that the straightforward way would be to go ahead and expand the technical education which they are now getting, apart altogether from creating a naval force.
In his interesting contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough. (Mr. Follick) pointed out that we ought


to take a long view of this question and should be looking 25 or 30 years ahead. That is a very long time in these days, in a world where international relationships fluctuate very much indeed. If my hon. Friend looks ahead in his preparations as far as that he may find that by the end of 30 years the Navy he desires to create today to safeguard the Empire has become the Navy which might be used against that very Empire that he wanted to safeguard. He has pointed out that we are pouring millions of money into the Colonies but he did not point out that we have already taken far more millions out of them. If we had acted fairly by the Colonies in days gone by, we might not need to be creating this force now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) was out of Order in some part of his speech. The hon. Member who is now addressing the House must not fall into the same error.

Mr. Rankin: I am very sorry, Sir, that I have fallen into my hon. Friend's simplified trap.

Mr. Follick: May I point out to my hon. Friend that the name of my constituency is not pronounced "Loborough" but "Lufborough"?

Mr. Rankin: I would say that the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) put his finger on the heart of the problem: manpower is what we are after. Time and again it has been shown in Debates on the Adjournment that the problem of Colonial manpower is agitating a great many people here. We have lost much of the manpower that we used to have. Now we are seeking new fields of recruitment and are looking to sources which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) pointed out, are sources that could be more usefully and constructively employed than in building up a navy. We are looking for new manpower.
I said previously in an Adjournment Debate on this subject, that I should have no objection to the recruitment of this manpower if my right hon. Friend would assure me that the people who are to he used for this purpose—the strategic defence of the Empire—will be consulted about the type of policy to be pursued in

the use of these forces. That, to me, is an elementary proposition. We are not, I hope, to put them to purposes which are ours, and about which they are not consulted. If we are to have these forces, if it is necessary to have them, then at least I submit it is equally necessary that we should take the native peoples fully into our confidence, and that we should fully consult them in any policies which involve the use of those forces.

5.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): The Government are very grateful to hon. Members for the cordial way in which they have welcomed this Bill. They believe that the policy they are following with regard to Colonial Forces is one which commands the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House, namely, the policy of enabling people in Colonial territories to take that part in their own defence and in Commonwealth defence which they ought to take. As my right hon. Friend has said, the time has come when it is due to the dignity of the people of those territories that they should take their due part in the defence of their own territories, and not for ever rely on other people to defend them. We are grateful for the help which the Royal Navy has given and will give in this sphere.
I would point out to hon. Members who have introduced a somewhat critical note—the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. E. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin)—that nothing in this Bill forces a Colony to do anything. It only enables a Colony or a group of Colonies which so desires to set up a naval force for the protection of its own area. There is no question of this being forced upon them. I can assure hon. Members that unless it is desired by the people of the territory the legislative council will not pass the necessary legislation. This Bill in itself, of course, does not set up any naval forces. It is an enabling Bill permitting Colonial legislatures to do so.
Let me reply to some of the points put and some of the questions asked. I shall answer as many of the questions as I possibly can. The Secretary of State and I are very grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) for the way in which he spoke for the Opposition. He spoke with all his usual


lucidity and none of his customary asperity, and we are grateful for the way in which he spoke on this occasion. I cannot give him in full the details of naval forces for which he asked, because, as he will understand, many of them are security matters, but I can give him a fairly good idea of the scope and purpose of the contemplated arrangements.
So far as the East African Naval Force is concerned, the four East African Governments have agreed, and made the necessary preliminary financial arrangements, to combine in the raising and maintenance of a regular, full-time naval force based on Mombasa. The main functions of the Force will be coastal patrol, minesweeping, and harbour control duties. That, I think, fits in with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) as being the probable scope of the duties of such a force as is proposed. The Admiralty have agreed to assist in the provision of craft and to the loan of personnel for command and administration. As soon as this Bill becomes law it will be possible for the East African Central Assembly to legislate by one ordinance for the raising of this Force.
As to the Malayan Force, it has been agreed in the Far Eastern Dependencies generally that Singapore should bear the main responsibility for naval forces. This, however, will not preclude the employment of personnel from the Federation in the Malayan Force, and in fact, I have no doubt, such personnel will be employed to quite a large extent, because the Malays, as everyone knows, are first-class seamen; and so, in fact, I am glad to say, are the Arabs and many of the African races who border the water line. But so far as this particular Malayan force is concerned, a number of Malays will be attracted, even though the main burden of responsibility for the Force will fall on Singapore and not on the Federation. The Federation, of course, is raising a number of battalions in the Malay Regiment, and that is how they are dividing the expense and the burden. Here, again, it will be minesweepers, launches, small craft and, possibly, frigates which will form the Force. Their function will be, in addition to minesweeping and harbour control duties, anti-piracy patrol.
I would remind the hon. Member for South Ayrshire that the world is by no

means as quiet as he would have us believe. Pirates are always likely to operate in Far Eastern waters, and if there should be a breakdown of the Royal Navy then no ship would be safe in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific, or the China seas. In my view, the work that the Royal Navy has done in the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, the China seas and the Pacific has never been adequately appreciated by the world at large. We have borne the main burden—the Royal Navy and the British taxpayers have borne the main burden—for many many years—one could almost say, for centuries—in this anti-piracy work. This will be one of the duties in which the Singapore Squadron will co-operate with the Royal Navy.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would my hon. Friend not agree that this function of protecting the ships of the world from piracy should be the duty of the United Nations Organisation, and not of the British Empire?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Whatever it may be in the realms of ethics, we are dealing with it in the realms of practical politics, and as no force has yet arisen to take its place, it is for us to make the necessary arrangements so that British ships flying the red duster and other ships may proceed on their lawful occasions without any harm. Legislation is now being prepared in Singapore for this force, and again this Bill will make it easy for them to legislate.
So far as Mauritius is concerned, there again full provision has been made for a small force which will come into operation when this Bill has passed through Parliament. I was asked about Fiji. Plans for financial arrangements have recently been made by the Governments of New Zealand and Fiji for co-ordination of their defence, and a small force of minesweepers and other small craft has been under consideration and will shortly, I think, be set up. As to Hong Kong, approval has been given for the formation of a combined volunteer force of all three Services. This includes a small naval component for harbour control, minesweeping and anti-piracy duties. This is particularly important in this area.
As regards the West African naval force, the West African Government are considering a proposal to form a force


on something like the same lines as that for East Africa, but, as yet, it has gone very little further than that. If I may answer the point raised on West Africa by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I would say that the example which he chose of Sierra Leone is particularly unfortunate? If the great harbour of Freetown had not been carefully protected and properly safeguarded in every way during the last war, possibly neither he nor I would be here today.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What has that to do with the next war?

Mr. Rees-Williams: One has always to make the necessary preparations for another war. That is the whole purpose of defence. We found in the recent war that Freetown was of vital importance not only to this country but to the Allies, and consequently to democracy. Probably the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and I would now be working in a salt mine if Freetown had not been there and the necessary arrangements had not been made. There is a small marine force in Freetown now, and I bad the honour of being conveyed across the harbour on more than one occasion during the last couple of months by the members of that force. I was particularly struck, if an ex-soldier may say so, by what appeared to me to be the fine seamanlike qualities of the personnel of that little marine force. I am sure that those in Freetown and Sierra Leone would not take the same view of the question as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has done.
Finally, we come to the West Indies, and it is probable that there will be a small volunteer force there, possibly based on Trinidad, but as yet, no concrete proposals have been made. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) asked me who was responsible for the training. The responsibility for training will be, of course, on the commander of the force in each particular place, but the Admiralty is prepared to furnish equipment on indefinite loan to these various forces, and they will approve all officers and instructors. They are also considering the question of the loan of ships, and they have agreed that Colonial seamen may have training courses and cruises in His Majesty's ships. The Admiralty cannot at present supply serving officers

or ratings owing to their own commitments, but reserve officers and ex-officers and ratings will undoubtedly be made available. That is as we know a difficult question at the present time owing to the training programme of the Admiralty, but it may become a little easier later on.
I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) as to the financing of these proposed extensions. I may say that the same provisions will apply as apply in all these matters of defence. The extent to which the proposed force will take its share in Commonwealth defence as a whole depends on how much the Colony can bear and what help they need from His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Chamberlain: It was made clear in another place that the cost of up-to-date equipment would be borne by this country. There seemed to be a clear line drawn there. Is that the case?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have said that the Admiralty will be prepared to lend equipment on permanent loan. To that extent, it will be borne by this country, but there is no additional expense. I take it that they have that equipment now. Financial matters are always a question for negotiation and one cannot lay down a general rule because each case depends upon the scope of the force and the amount of help needed. Regarding the question asked by the hon. Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), appropriate machinery already exists for the co-ordination of defence, and this machinery will be constantly in operation with regard to all these forces. There is no question of any part of the machinery going out of gear, as it were, in relation to the remainder of it. I think that I have answered the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) and that I told him what our policy is in the build up. I can assure him that there is no question in any of these developments of neglecting the economic, social and educational projects which we have in mind.

Mr. Chamberlain: I think that the hon. Gentleman missed the point. I asked specifically what would be the relationship between these forces being built up, particularly in the Pacific, and what backing they would receive. Are we to have Royal Naval forces in the Pacific? At the moment, I gather we have none at all


and that we are relying on the American Navy. Will that be the state of affairs in the coming years?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have given the House the scope of the various forces contemplated, and the question now asked me is really outside the limits of this Bill. That is a broad question of naval and defence policy which has nothing to do with this Bill. This Bill is necessary for the purposes which I have indicated, and I should have thought that the matter to which my hon. Friend referred was one which could have been discussed more accurately on the Estimates on another occasion.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) asked me a question about sea cadets. No amendment is necessary in this Bill to make provision for the formation of sea cadet units. That is entirely within the existing powers of the Colonial Governments. Their attention will be directed by my right hon. Friend to the speech by the hon. Baronet, and they will be asked to do what they can to meet his wishes in that respect. We appreciate the point made, and we quite agree with the necessity of training these boys in the way that he has suggested. My right hon. Friend and I are also fully in accord with his suggestion as to public relations and telling the people what is happening. We are trying to do that in every case, not only with regard to naval provisions, but also in connection with the educational and economic projects which we have in hand. In these days it is essential, not only that we should do the work, but that we should let our works be known amongst men, and before we do them. That is not the actual Biblical quotation.

Mr. W. J. Brown: "Let your light so shine before men."

Mr. Rees-Williams: I realised that the hon. Member was watching me very closely. I am obliged to him for the correction.
Several points were put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey. We cannot admit that the Admiralty have a greater interest in this matter than we have. My right hon. Friend is the person primarily responsible for all these matters, whether of defence or otherwise, in the Colonies, and, while he will be

very pleased to consult with his noble Friend the First Lord, he must insist that he is the person primarily responsible, and not the Admiralty.
I think that I have covered all the matters raised in this brief, but I think we can say valuable, Second Reading Debate, and I therefore ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Mr. Austin: rose—

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Mr. Austin: On a point of Order. Before my hon. Friend sat down I rose to ask whether I might put a question to him. Might I do so now?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not see the hon. Member on his feet. The Motion "That the Bill be now read a Second time" has now been carried.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Hannan.]

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading, read

5.32 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, pays the same taxes and has to maintain her social and other services on the same standards as Great Britain, but owing to her social and industrial conditions, the cost of these services is, in general, proportionately higher in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Parliament has recognised this fact for over 20 years. It has accepted the principle that the Imperial Exchequer should meet part of this extra cost. Agreements for this purpose have been made between the two governments from time to time since 1926. They are known as "re-insurance agreements" and they have to be ratified in short Acts of Parliament. One of these is now before the House.
The last agreement was made in September, 1946, and provided that the


United Kingdom Exchequer should share in the excess cost of unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance, and family allowances in Northern Ireland. It was then recognised, as those who remember the Debate will know, that the agreement was only temporary, because the National Health Act, the National Insursance Act, and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, all of 1946, were not to come into operation until 5th July, 1948. So, paragraph 7 (2) of the agreement of 1946 provided that the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance in Northern Ireland should consult together in order to make a further agreement when the full social security scheme had come into operation.
As hon. Members will observe from the Schedule, the general basis of the new agreement does not differ substantially from the agreement embodied in the Act of 1946. It does not, however, include national insurance or national insurance industrial injuries. Under Sections 63 and 84 respectively of the National Insurance and National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts, provision was made for reciprocal arrangements for what was called "unified system" on the widest possible basis to be implemented between the two countries if, on examination, it was discovered that that was the better way of handling the matter. The matter has been considered by the two Governments, and it has been decided that it would be better to keep both these schemes outside the agreement now to be ratified.
The parity proportion mentioned in the old agreement was 2.2 per cent. This represented the estimated ratio of the total employed population in Northern Ireland to the same population in Great Britain and Northern Ireland together. In the new agreement the parity proportion has been fixed at 2.5 per cent., on a slightly different basis. The House will readily recognise that the benefits re-insured under this agreement cover the whole of the population and not just the employed part of the population, as was the case in the agreement to which I have referred. Therefore, the new ratio is calculated by reference to the ratio of the whole population of Northern Ireland to that of the United Kingdom.
One final word on the financial effect of this agreement. The payments that

will be made by the United Kingdom Exchequer for the year 1948–49 are provisionally estimated, as is seen in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, at £2.4 million. I should perhaps remind the House that that only covers a period from 5th July, 1948, to 31st March, 1949—not a full year. I think it is only fair that I should indicate—because it is not in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—just how this £2.4 million is made up. As we estimate it, there will be about £540,000 towards national assistance, £758,000 towards non-contributory old age pensions, £658,000 towards family allowances, £ 292,000 towards the National Health Service, and £144,000 towards unemployment extended benefits. Those figures add up to £2,392,000—not much short of the £2.4 million.
I do not think I need say any more at this juncture in commending the Bill to the House. It is a short Measure. I hope the House will feel that it is non-controversial, and that we shall have its Second Reading without a Division.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: This Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, is a natural and inevitable sequel to the temporary agreement of 1946 that was embodied in the Act of that year and the coming into force on 5th July last of the additional or extended social services, such as the National Health Services, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. As he said, the 1946 Act was supported in all quarters of the House, and I hope that this Bill will be accepted in the same way. The right hon. Gentleman left one point a little vague, however, and as this is a Bill to embody an agreement and is therefore not susceptible to amendment on Committee stage, perhaps he will clear it up before we conclude this Debate. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Schedule, he will see that paragraph (ii) (b) provides for ascertainment of what is called "the net Exchequer cost" of the five services. Paragraph 2 (ii) provides that:
If in respect of any financial year the total net Exchequer cost in Northern Ireland under Article 1 hereof exceeds 2.5 per cent. of the total net Exchequer cost in Great Britain and Northern Ireland there shall be paid to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom 80 per cent. of the amount by which the said Exchequer cost in Northern Ireland exceeds the said 2.5 per cent.


There is a corresponding provision for payment from Northern Ireland if the cost of the services in Northern Ireland is less than 2.5 per cent. of the total cost throughout the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this figure of 2.5 per cent. is now related, not to the total insured population, which was the method by which the figure of 2.2 per cent. was ascertained under the old agreement, but was ascertained by reference to the whole population in Northern Ireland as compared with the population of the United Kingdom. I am not clear whether that is the case because paragraph 2 (iii) provides for a review of this figure of 2.5 per cent. at the end of three years, and says:
The Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland shall review the said proportion of 2.5 per cent.… and shall take into consideration that the said proportion was calculated by reference to the proportions which at the date of this Agreement the population and taxable capacity of Northern Ireland bore respectively to the total population and total taxable capacity of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It goes on to provide that if these two factors, not the one factor mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but the population factor and the taxable capacity, should vary, then there will be a review either up or down of this percentage.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to inform the House how it is proposed to go about this review if the population has risen, on the one hand, and the taxable capacity has diminished, on the other. Either or both of these two factors may vary upwards or downwards, and it is a little difficult for me to understand how this figure of 2.5 per cent. can be related to two variable factors. I hope the right Gentleman will say a further word about this before we conclude the Debate. Subject to these observations, we welcome the Bill and hope it will find a speedy place on the Statute Book.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I quite see that the Opposition should welcome this Bill. After all, it was the provision of these services subsidised by the people of Great Britain, which was the great stock in trade of the party opposite in the recent elections in Northern Ireland. But we on this side of the House ought to make certain when we are voting a sum of about £2½ million for social services in

Northern Ireland that it is to be properly administered. We cannot just pay out money without any control over administration. I hope that in the course of the Debate we shall have some assurance from Members who sit for Northern Ireland that the Government of Northern Ireland will follow the same principle as the Government in this country, namely, consulting with the trade union interests. There are a number of consultative committees. Therefore, can we have an assurance that the Northern Ireland committee of the T.U.C. will be consulted in the same way as the T.U.C. is consulted over here? I do not think that that is an unreasonable request, and it is something which should be answered by one of the representatives for Northern Ireland.

5.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: We in Northern Ireland think that this is a most desirable Bill, and we welcome it. There have been many agreements such as those of 1926, 1929 and 1936, but this is a wider agreement in that it includes the National Health Service and non-contributory old age pensions. It is most desirable in these matters that our social services should go hand-in-hand. The right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will remember that when he and I were boys, there was a tremendous movement of shipyard workers between Glasgow. Belfast and Barrow. That is not the case today, the reason being that housing accommodation is limited in all these

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the hon. and gallant Member aware that when some of us in the Clyde were in difficulty and any question of providing us with assistance was raised, the Tories always said it would sap our sturdy independence? Is not the hon. and gallant Member afraid that this aid will sap the independence of the people in Northern Ireland?

Sir W. Smiles: This is news to me. I have never heard of anything that will sap the sturdy independence of Scotsmen. During the war, a great many Englishmen and Scotsmen were fortunate enough to be stationed in Northern Ireland, and many were even more fortunate in that they managed to marry


Irish girls. Many of these people paid insurance contributions when they were in England. Some of those men, with their wives, have gone back to England again but others have settled in Northern Ireland, and it would certainly be unfair if they missed the privileges they had in England and Scotland. Also we have a great many technicians and specialists working in Northern Ireland who have mostly come from England. I would first allude to the great factory of Courtaulds which is being erected at Carrickfergus. There is also Short Bros., of Rochester, who have transferred to Short and Harlands in Belfast, where many of their specialists and technicians are working, and there are factories in Newtownards and other places.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) mentioned the cost of this but I am sure that he knows very well that the total contribution of Northern Ireland to the Exchequer here since partition is about £237 million and on the other side of the account is the sum of only £42 million. The hon. Member for Horn-church also mentioned the trade unions. I saw in my newspaper this morning that there is a bitter fight between the trade unions of Northern Ireland whether they are to be assimilated into and work with Eire or to work with the T.U.C. on this side. I have sat on bodies which consulted the trade unions in Northern Ireland. I admit that that was during the war, but I have always heard and found that the Northern Ireland Government are very willing to work hand-in-hand with the trade unions. Indeed, Mr. William Grant, the Minister of Health, is a shipwright and a prominent trade unionist himself. However, it is not a case of mere money. We may have given an Imperial contribution of £200 million to the Treasury here; we are glad and proud to do that, we are grateful for the social services we have in Northern Ireland, and we appreciate to the full the protection and privileges we enjoy under the Union Jack and as a part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bing: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) prepared to urge on the Northern Ireland Government that in each case where consultation takes place

with the appropriate trade union in regard to social services in this country, the same consultation shall take place in Northern Ireland?

Sir W. Smiles: It would be unnecessary for me to do that, but I will certainly bring this Debate to the notice of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. However, I have never found him backward in consulting the trade unions.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: With the leave of the House, I will reply briefly to the few points which have been made. It is true that, in my very brief speech, I did not mention the fact that taxable capacity had also to be taken into account; but then I did not refer to the fact that a review would take place at the end of three years. I did not pretend to cover everything. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is right in saying that such a review will take place and that the taxable capacity as well as the population will be taken into account in deciding whether a percentage of 2.5 is correct. He also asked how it would be possible to decide what the percentage would be, if both these factors varied independently. The resources of Government are fairly substantial and it is not beyond the wit of Government actuaries on both sides of the Irish Channel to, take these variable factors into account.

Mr. Peake: May I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that it has not yet been determined how much weight, on the one hand, shall be attributed to the population factor and how much to the taxable capacity factor when it comes to reviewing this agreement in three years' time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Oh, yes. I should perhaps add that, even when the calculation comes to be made, it may not be exact. The final figure will be determined by agreement. I have no reason to doubt that this will be done amicably, without recourse to the machinery for referring difficulties which may arise to the Joint Exchequer Board.
I never expected to get through this Debate without a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). He asks a question which I am sure he does not expect me to answer; it would surprise him if I


attempted to do so. His question was no more than trailing of his coat in true Irish fashion in front of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I leave it at that.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) drew attention to the considerable contributions which have been and are being made by Northern Ireland towards the Imperial Exchequer. What he says is quite true. As I said when I began, Northern Ireland pays taxes like the rest of Great Britain and has never attempted to get out of its obligations. That should be noted because it is a definite fact.

Professor Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly confirm the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) that the net contribution from Northern Ireland to the end of the last financial year was £195 million?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It might well be. I can neither confirm nor deny it without having had time to add up the figures which I have here. If the hon. and gallant Member for Down has added up the figures, which are published and are accessible to anybody his answer is likely to be correct. His arithmetic is probably as good as mine.
It is only fair to Northern Ireland that I should say that there is no question of Northern Ireland's getting something to which she is not entitled. It is a fact that, under some of our insurance Acts, certain localities in England receive more than the citizens there actually contribute. We have to take one area with another in Great Britain and deal with the whole thing in global fashion. No one ever says that, because in Manchester at certain times when other Governments were in office more was drawn out in unemployment pay than was contributed by those who drew it, they were therefore getting something to which they were not entitled. All we are doing here is to apply the same principle to Northern Ireland because, at the moment, owing to

the population and her social and industrial situation, it so happens that we have a lack of balance. We must remember that Northern Ireland is part of the British Isles and was loyal to this country during the war years. She is not getting something for nothing. We are simply readjusting as between two Parliaments and two areas what we do automatically between two areas in England.

Mr. Gallacher: As to the difference between Lancashire and Yorkshire and this country and Northern Ireland, is it not the case that in Northern Ireland we have a Tory Government which is very anxious to get financial assistance—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That question has little or nothing to do with the Bill before the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Hannan.]

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm and give effect to an agreement made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland with a view to assimilating the burdens on the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and the Exchequer of Northern Ireland in respect of certain social and allied services, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums payable under or by virtue of the said agreement from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

6.2 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): Before moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I have to acquaint the House that I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of the Bill, gives his consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.3 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: We on this side of the House regret the circumstances which have made this Bill necessary, and I deplore the intervention of the State into new fields, unless the necessity for that intervention has been abundantly proved. Here, however, we have had the reports of two committees dealing with this subject, and the recommendations of these committees have been unanimous. In the circumstances we have accepted the Bill with the regret of which I have spoken, and we have devoted ourselves to an endeavour to improve it so far as that is possible. Indeed, I think hon. Members can claim that the Bill has been improved from the Measure originally before us.
It remedies what was an unsatisfactory position where, to get over the difficulties of the existing situation, the Secretary of State had to have recourse to his requisitioning powers. That, I am sure all hon. Members felt, placed him in a highly unenviable position. On this side of the House we all feel much happier that the matter has now been placed in the hands of the Sheriff, and we are happy to leave it in his hands because we are absolutely assured that, as far as is humanly possible, he will serve out equal justice to both landlord and tenant, and will not forget that hardships bear as heavily on the one as on the other.
I can only express the hope that this will be a temporary Measure and that the circumstances which make it necessary will soon disappear, so that free agreements may again be entered into between both parties concerned without the

balance being unduly weighted against either of them. In these circumstances, I hope that the Bill will speedily find its way on to the Statute Book.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Willis: It is only right that on the Third Reading of this Bill someone from this side of the House should express appreciation of the steps taken by the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate in pushing this matter along in the way they have done. For the past two years in Scotland, quite a number of shopkeepers have suffered enormous hardships as a result of the neglect of the party opposite in not giving to the shopkeepers any protection in the past. That was exceedingly unfortunate, the more so that this neglect should have been on the part of a party which claims to be the champion of the small shopkeeper.

Commander Galbraith: Did not the hon. Gentleman himself say that in the past there had been hundreds of empty shops in his own city. How, then, does he make the charge that he is presently making?

Mr. Willis: The fact is that the shopkeepers when faced with this ramp, on the part of the private speculators in the main, and probably to a lesser extent the private landlords, found themselves without any protection at all. It is also a fact that a large number of them have lost their livelihood, and that ex-Service men who have put their gratuities into shops have also lost their livelihood because such protection did not exist.

Commander Galbraith: But might I ask the hon. Gentleman since when has this position arisen? I understood from the explanations given to us that it had arisen directly out of the war, that it is quite a new thing. Might I remind him that there has not been a Conservative Government in power during the last 10 years?

Mr. Willis: I am afraid I should be out of Order in going into the history of this matter, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this happened in the three or four years after the first World War, and it happened again in 1946, 1947 and 1948.

Commander Galbraith: Under a Socialist rule.

Mr. Willis: But in 1948 steps were taken to requisition properties and to prevent the effect of this neglect from being felt fully by shopkeepers in the case of those shops which were serving the national need.
I would like on behalf of many of my constituents to express their thanks for this Bill because it will afford protection to shopkeepers in Glasgow and Edinburgh, indeed all over Scotland. I hope it makes speedy progress and is placed on the Statute Book without delay.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: May I add my word of congratulation to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Lord Advocate for dealing with this question in the manner they have? There is no doubt that the sale of shops, the sustained eviction of tenants in Glasgow, was getting under way, and if it had not been that questions were raised in this House and that action was demanded from the Government the ramp would have increased tremendously in the city, and most small shopkeepers would have had the pistol put to their heads either to buy at exorbitant prices or to quit the premises. This is part of the general ramp which has been going on with property of all kinds. Many men have formed companies for the purpose of buying up shops and other property all over the country. Then they place the property on the market in an endeavour to extract from the public the highest possible figure.
Whilst we are dealing in this Measure with shops, there is still the very large issue regarding house property, factories and so on which have been dealt with in the same manner. Whilst however, as the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has said, we have had three years of Socialist Government and all this has grown up during that period, I assure the hon. and gallant Member that on many occasions attempts have been made to get this action started in a very real form in Glasgow. The property owners of that city always thought that the Front Bench of the Conservative Party were their defenders who would prevent any exploitation of this kind from being stopped.
I welcome the fact that we have a Socialist Administration that is prepared

to pay heed to the grievances of small shopkeepers. We do not need to worry about the large multiple traders, for they have the ability and funds to pay prices of a higher character. Large numbers of these small shopkeepers are being threatened. I know from my own constituency of injured men, who have received some form of compensation, going into the little shops and beginning to make a livelihood, together with the women of whom we used to hear from the Tory Party when we restricted rents and so forth—"What about the poor old widow woman who owns the property?" I remember that at one time the uncle of the late Lord Advocate was asked in Glasgow about the building of house property and what was to happen to the poor old widows who had money invested in property. He said, "Oh, I would invite a conference of all the widows who had been exploited and allow them to settle it amongst themselves."
I am glad that there is to be a genuine attempt to stop the exploitation which now exists. People have redress now in going to the sheriffs. On the whole, I have found the sheriffs in Glasgow very sympathetic in cases of this kind when dealing with injustices against any section of the community, and I think people who appeal to them will get a very fair crack of the sheriff's whip. The stopping of this ramp is important. Although the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate have dealt with it intelligently, I should like them to try to find ways and means of dealing with the much greater ramp in Glasgow of the sale of flats and the threatened eviction of tenants, and with the houses which are coming into the open market and being sold at a time when people are clamouring for houses. In Glasgow the ramp in house property is prevalent on a very large scale indeed. I do, however, welcome the action contemplated in the Bill and I compliment the Government, the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate in their wisdom in driving through this Measure.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. McKie: Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) I always resent the intervention of the State in any sphere where it is not absolutely necessary


but, like him, I have come to the conclusion that the Bill is necessary and I welcome it on its Third Reading. I do not, however, give it the same kind of, if I may so express it, almost malicious welcome which the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) gave to it when he endeavoured in his remarks to stir up quite a lot of political prejudice.

Mr. Willis: Probably the hon. Gentleman has never been in the position, with which I was once confronted, of being faced with a buy or quit notice.

Mr. McKie: I am glad to admit that I have not been in that position and I very much sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on having been so placed.
The Bill seeks to achieve a justice between landlord and tenant. It is natural—and in this I shall have the agreement of the hon. Member for North Edinburgh—that when we set out to achieve such a balance of justice one interest or the other must be in the position of being more or less the attacked party. In this Measure it is the interest of the landlord which is in the position of being attacked. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh, however, must not seek to attribute any wrong motives to me, for I am not suggesting that everything was perfect in the tenancy of small shops in Scotland, otherwise this Measure would not have been introduced. Although this is a matter of concern more to the urban and industrial areas in Scotland than to the countryside, there are cases in all constituencies where a Measure of this nature is highly necessary. As a result of its passage through the Committee stage the Bill, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok has said, is considerably improved and, so far as the landlord's interest is concerned, I congratulate the Lord Advocate on refusing to be beguiled by the somewhat rash pleas made to him from those hon. Gentlemen and Ladies on the back bench who are so-called supporters of the Government.
My one fear about the Bill is that Clause 1, its operative Clause, seeks to impose upon sheriffs substitute and sheriffs principal, increased responsibilities and increased burdens. In much of the legislation introduced by the present Socialist Government there have been complaints that the sheriffs were being

loaded with increased responsibilities. This Bill is no exception. I can see no other way, however, if we are to achieve this justice between landlord and tenant. I hope very much that sheriffs will not be put to too much trouble in interpreting Clause 1 for, although it has been subjected during Committee stage to a very searching investigation, particularly by the Opposition, I fear there will still be some pitfalls. I consider that the Bill was inevitable and I give it a tepid welcome.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: Whilst I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill following the representations that were made to the Secretary of State, I feel as a Scotsman that it is a matter of considerable regret that it should have been necessary. There is no doubt that certain people whom I do not consider to be bona fide landlords have been dealing speculatively with properties and have used the existing shortage for ends that, to my moral reasoning are by no means virtuous. Some people think that the Bill has been delayed too long, but I consider that the Government were right in setting up an inquiry to try to get all the evidence and then taking the interim step of requisitioning. The inevitable conclusion come to was that this evil is a continuing evil. Only today I received a letter from Ayr. That is not one of the cities which has been mentioned, but it is a provincial town of considerable importance. This is what is happening in that town of
honest men and bonnie lasses.
I am not concerned about the bonnie lasses tonight, but with one gentleman who considers himself an honest man. The landlord in this case is an Ayr man and a Scotsman. The tenant writes:
The long overdue Bill to protect small shopkeepers before Parliament just now, may serve to forestall my landlord from putting me on the street. I have either to buy my shop, or to get out. Some two or three years ago he bought the property, comprising five dwellinghouses and three shops for £1,700. In the interval he has sold two of the houses, one a three apartment tenement for £750 and a kitchen for £300 making in all £1,050. He now wants £900 from the baker"—
who has a shop next door to this man—
the same from me and £1,200 from the hairdresser, in all £3,000 and, mark you, he still has three houses to play with.


That is the kind of thing that this Bill is to deal with. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) has left the Chamber, but I am sure that the sheriffs of Scotland will gladly accept the responsibility of the increased work involved in getting rid of an injustice of this nature which, to my mind, is bringing a ray of light upon a section of Scottish landlords that does not reflect great credit on them.

Mr. Willis: Tory landlords.

Mr. Ross: I welcome the support of the Opposition for this Measure and I hope they will always support us when Measures of this sort are brought before the House.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I am sure the House will agree that the main purpose of this Bill is to stop the "buy or quit" racket, and in so far as it achieves that objective it will certainly have the full support of the whole House. But there is one anxiety that I have about it. That is the possibility that sheriff courts may conceivably get overloaded in the course of carrying out the provisions of the Measure. In order that they shall not get overloaded, it seems to me that a certain amount of restraint will be required on the part of both landlord and tenant. If the tenants choose to regard this Bill as a means of preventing their having to pay even a reasonable increase in rent and interpret the words
a renewal of his tenancy on terms that are satisfactory to him
in the most narrow sense and are not satisfied with anything except existing terms, recourse to the sheriff courts by the tenants will be far more considerable than is intended. On the other hand, it may be that landlords would regard this as possibly the last opportunity of increasing rents, believing that as the Government have already clamped down on the increase of rents of residential premises, so that the Government intend to do the same in regard to shop premises, and that there is only a little time left for them to increase their rents.
The best service the Secretary of State could give the Measure to make certain that it works well and smoothly, would be to give an assurance that the Government have no intention of clamping down, whatever the circumstances, on all

increases in rent of shops, and that if the Guthrie Committee, which has already made its interim recommendations, does not recommend in its final report a complete cessation of increases in rents, the Government will not impose that in the Bill which ultimately will come before the House to cover the whole question of shop property. In my view that is the best service the right hon. Gentleman could give to make certain that neither a tenant nor a landlord abuses the Measure and that it is used principally to achieve its main purpose of stopping the "buy or quit" racket. With that one qualification, I add my welcome to the Bill and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having introduced it and the Guthrie Committee on the good sense of their interim report.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said he regretted the Bill—

Commander Galbraith: I regretted the circumstances which made it necessary, which is rather a different thing.

Mr. Gallacher: He regretted the circumstances which made it necessary. The circumstances were the attempt on the part of the landlords to impose heavy payments on people who in many cases were unable to afford them. The hon. and gallant Member did not mean those circumstances, but actually meant that he regretted that the Bill was introduced. In a certain measure I also regret the character of the Bill, not that it is introduced, but that it deals only with a small but, nevertheless, important section of the problem. It only deals with shopkeepers. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to a case where a landlord is selling off shop and house property. The Bill deals with the shop property, but not the house property. He can still sell the kitchen for £300.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member will, in fairness, remember that on the Committee stage we on this side of the House endeavoured to extend the protection given by this Measure to other than shops.

Mr. Gallacher: I know that the question of the attempt to soak the tenants is not something new, but is an old old


problem, which we have had to fight in Glasgow and on the Clyde for many years. In no instance where there has been an attempt to protect the tenant against the rapacious landlord have the representatives on the other side of the House, including the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok, entered the campaign against the rapacious landlords. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the fact that we have advice on this matter from two Committees, the Taylor Committee and the Guthrie Committee the former of which strongly advised not only that shops, but business premises, should be brought into this—

The Lord Advocate: May I correct the hon. Member? The terms of reference of the Taylor Committee were confined to shops and the terms of reference of the first branch of the Guthrie Committee remit were confined to shops. No recommendation has been made by either Committee in relation to other premises.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that this Bill deals with shops, and shops alone. Discussion of other tenancies is out of Order.

Mr. Gallacher: I was just going to make that remark. If the Lord Advocate had not interrupted, I was going to say that in the meantime other premises were outwith the terms of this Bill. I mentioned the fact of those two Committees which reported.
The point we have to consider concerns shops. I do not like the power which is given to the sheriff. Too much power is given to him and too little power is retained by the Secretary of State to make final decisions where they are necessary. One of the Opposition spokesmen said that one thing he regretted was that the Minister had used his power to requisition. I regret the fact that he has not used his powers of requisitioning sufficiently widely. Now he is letting the power go out of his hands altogether, with the result such a situation could arise as a sheriff in Glasgow accepting quite a different estimate from that accepted by the sheriff in Edinburgh, with no appeal of any kind to the Minister being possible against any such decision.
I know that this Bill was framed and is being hurried through Parliament be-

cause of the necessity for speed in dealing with this question. The subsection dealing with the powers of a sheriff arises from the necessity for speed, or I am quite certain that some other method of dealing with this question would have been devised in order to ensure that where a decision was made which left room for questioning an appeal would still lie to the Secretary of State, perhaps direct through the complainant or through Members of Parliament. We have seen how important it is for Members to raise these questions with the Secretary of State. It is because of the fact that many Members of this House have continually put down questions to the Secretary of State that we have had this matter pushed forward.
It is undesirable that we should be passing a Bill which takes away the power from the Secretary of State in a matter of this kind, and leaves the decision to a sheriff in Ayrshire, Glasgow or Edinburgh. If the sheriff in Glasgow accepts an estimate and gives a decision quite out of proportion in either direction to one which has been given in Edinburgh, nothing can be done about it. There is no appeal against it. I suggest even at this late stage that as the Bill has to go elsewhere the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State might yet consider whether a final appeal should not be reserved to the Secretary of State so that all the power does not go out of his hands.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: I wish to make one or two points because of the intervention of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). He rather indicated that landlords will have the power to raise the rent and that there will be no appeal against a decision of that kind. The Bill makes it clear that not will only the tenant have the right to seek the protection of the sheriff in the event of a demand being made to him to purchase; he will equally have the right, if he regards the rent asked as rather high and exorbitant, to appeal to the sheriff against that increase. I hope it will be clearly noted that whether in the case of increased rent or a demand to purchase, he has the right of appeal.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The point I was making was that that right would have to be exercised with caution or the courts


would be completely overloaded. Obviously an exorbitant demand should be withstood, but a reasonable demand—that is, one that would be acceptable to a reasonable tenant—need not necessarily lead to court action.

Mr. Carmichael: It is not for the hon. Member or myself to begin discussing what is a reasonable or exorbitant rent; it will depend on the circumstances. Both the landlord and tenant will require to make up their minds on the matter and then lodge an appeal if there is a feeling that an injustice is being done.
This is a temporary Measure, because the Committee's work is still incomplete. I hope that the Committee will appreciate the fact that if the property scarcity continues, especially in the centre of large cities, the need to give some protection to the tenant will continue. Let it be clearly understood that this Bill would have been unnecessary had the landlords been reasonable and tolerant in the beginning. They felt that they had a commodity with which they could play, and they demanded most exorbitant rents. Ultimately they demanded the right to call upon the tenant to purchase the property. One might even go further and say that there are now very few shops in the large cities of Scotland the tenants of which do not actually pay the owner's rates. The landlords have gone a considerable way in increasing the rent over that which was formerly paid.
I welcome the Measure. It is a means of protection. There is a feeling that a shop is a particular kind of place on a ground floor and that beyond that one is dealing with other premises. If the Lord Advocate will permit me, I would use, not knowledge which I specially possess, but information which he has already conveyed to the Scottish Grand Committee. He made it clear that
A shop, under the terms of the 1912 Act, includes 'any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on.'
He further told us that
Retail trade or business 'includes the business of a barber or hairdresser, the sale of refreshments or intoxicating liquors and retail sales by auction, but does not include the sale of programmes and catalogues and other similar sales at theatres and places of amusement.'
He further said:
Under the terms of the Shops Act, 1934, a shop means' any shop as defined by the 1912

Act and any Wholesale shop, and includes any warehouse occupied for the purposes of his trade by any person carrying on any retail trade or business or by any wholesale dealer or merchant.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 9th February, 1949; c. 25.]
That is somewhat wider than the commonly accepted view of a shop. We are grateful for that information from the Lord Advocate because many of the people who are threatened are occupying premises of that kind. I hope that the speed with which this Measure is being passed will be a great aid to people of the kind mentioned. As one of the persons who was critical of the Government in the early stages of this matter, I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, and hope that it will serve the purpose which we desire it to serve.

6.39 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I also desire to welcome this Bill. I am sure that it will be of great assistance to the shop people of Scotland. It is rather a curious commentary that such a Bill is necessary. When the Opposition were in power, the criticism of shop proprietors was about the heavy taxation which they had to pay on empty property. Such was the alleged prosperity of the masses that row upon row of shops were empty while the Opposition were in power. When Labour came to power almost every empty shop sprang to life, and there was a complete reversal of the situation. The property owner then began to find that there was a demand for the shops and he engaged in his little ramp. It says much for the much maligned Labour Government, who were constantly taunted in the Press that they were not the friends of the small shopkeeper—

Mr. Speaker: All this would be very appropriate on Second Reading but on Third Reading we ought to confine ourselves to the Bill, without any background.

Mrs. Mann: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite clear on the distinction between Second and Third Reading. It says much for the Government that they introduced this very fine Measure so quickly.
As the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has said, to a certain extent it hands the small shopkeeper over to the sheriff, but only for one year. It is really a stop-gap Measure; it ends in


1950. We hope that the Guthrie Committee will have completely finished their report by that time and that we shall be able to introduce a more comprehensive Measure which will include offices and business premises. I am sure that the Bill will be of great assistance to the shopkeepers of Scotland.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. J. L. Williams: So far as I can see the question is whether we shall accept the Bill as it stands. For my part I say, "Yes," without hesitation. A great many shopkeepers with whom I come in contact, many who are actually affected by the provisions of this Bill, also say without hesitation that they wish to see the Bill passed into law as quickly as possible. The experience of a year ago, as the last May term came along, and the prospect for the coming May term, form a background which creates in the minds of shopkeepers an acute demand for this piece of legislation.
It is quite true that the present machinery enabling the Secretary of State to requisition properties has gone a long way towards relieving quite a number of shopkeepers. Indeed, it will have relieved a much greater number than can be found in any record produced. At the same time, I consider that this Bill is a peat improvement, if only for the fact that under requisitioning not only essential services are recognised, but the personal hardship of the shopkeeper. There are some things left out of this Bill which we should have liked to see in it, such as the inclusion of offices and other business premises.
There is also the question of rent. I would repeat this, because I have had correspondence from quite a number of shopkeepers, including some in my own constituency, who are being asked to sign on the dotted line very quickly—apparently before this Bill comes into force—and to pay a rent that is more than 100 per cent. of the rent of 1939. I believe that this problem of rent will become very acute in the next few months, and perhaps more so within the next 12 or 15 months.
At the same time we realise that this Bill does provide things we have asked

for very loudly. We recognise the readiness of the Secretary of State to meet our demands in this respect. The Bill does provide something for the small man. After all, the small man has been preached about so much and so little has been done for him that today the small man, in the form of many shopkeepers, cannot believe that anything is being done. So he writes to his M.P. and asks if it is true that any protection is being given to him for his tenancy under this new Bill. Well, there is something provided.
There were some Amendments which it was sought to put into this Bill which I am glad have been left out. I would mention the circumstances in which the sheriff can refuse the renewal of a tenancy. I am glad that those circumstances have not been extended. That would have tended to destroy the purpose of the Bill. I am glad also that the sheriff is to have the final say and that there is no question of appeal, because that again would have defeated the purpose of the Bill inasmuch as the shopkeeper would not be able to get his decision as quickly as he would wish to have it. There is something which we too can do in this connection. The shopkeeper wishes to have the decision from the court as soon as possible. He wants to get on with the job. We can enable the Secretary of State to get this Bill made law at the earliest possible date.

6.46 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I wish to support the Bill. It has this outstanding merit, that the House very rarely discusses this very important industry of shopkeeping. It will be remembered that one caustic critic of our country described us as a nation of shopkeepers, and it is gratifying to find the Government taking an interest in the shopkeeping industry.
There have been some hard things said, notably by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who talked in typical strain about the rapacious landlord. The hon. Member may have met a good many of them; I have not met many. Those whom he described as rapacious landlords have often been compelled, owing to the exigencies of recent times, to sell their properties in order to live. If the hon. Member were similarly circumstanced, and as hard driven as they


were, I do not know what he would have done other than sell his property. It is incorrect to say that the rapacity of landlords is widespread and universal.
I have a considerable admiration for what is called the "landlord class," although the term is not very accurately applied to this Bill. They are neither lords, nor do they own land. They are persons who, by thrift and economy, have saved some substance—while other people spent their's on riotous and other forms of living—and invested it in shop property. They are entitled to a reasonable reward for their investment. The hardness of the times and the increase in taxation have compelled them in many instances to sell their property for what prices they could get. That is what I would have done. I see no hardship in it and I do not recognise any great difference, in our attitude towards economic affairs, between myself and the hon. Member for West Fife.
This is an important Bill because it is a recognition by the Government that the distributive system of this country is very important. A number of hard things have been said about the distributive system of this country—that it is extravagant, that there are too many shops and too many people employed in shops. I am glad that the Government recognise not only the importance of the distributive industry, but the importance of its having a certain security of tenure. I do not agree with the hon. Member for West Fife that there should be an appeal to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has been wise to shed this responsibility. The sheriff is good enough for me, and when the hon. Member for West Fife comes before the sheriff, the sheriff will be good enough for him as well. I think that the Measure is well devised in seeing that the sheriff is the final arbitrator in this matter.
I wish to make an observation with regard to the "soaking" of the tenant. The so-called soaking of the tenant has been referred to. I am not aware—and I should think I speak for some 90 per cent. of tenants of shops in Scotland—that any of this soaking of the tenant has taken place to any extent.

Mr. Gallacher: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)? Was that not a case of soaking the tenant?

That type of story could be repeated from all over the country.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), like me, can instance many single cases. I submit that by and large, this was not a general evil but a specific evil. I do not think that the number of cases submitted to the inquiry which the Secretary of State set up was large considering the number of shop premises now in occupation throughout Scotland. This is a Bill which deals with a temporary phase. It is apparent from Clause 3 (3) that the Government believe that this evil will have passed by 31st December, 1950. This is not a great or grievous evil. The Government have seen the matter in proper proportion. They have not been led away by the excitability of the hon. Member for West Fife and those who share his views. They have responded to a clamour but they have done so temporarily and they have not taken it too seriously.
This is a useful Measure which possibly will give some support to certain Members of Parliament who require the help of the small shopkeeper and who have never deserved it before. It may give them some support in that direction, and they are welcome to it if they can achieve it. Nothing has been said about who these rapacious landlords are. It is right to say that they are not necessarily individuals. They are often large corporations and they include—notably in the Highlands, I regret to say—the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society which has bought properties over the heads of tenants, not once or twice but many times. Let us be fair—

Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is not a single case in which the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society took over premises in the Highlands which was not a negotiated sale with the owners and that the people were glad and willing to sell in order to get out?

Sir W. Darling: Doubtless the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) speaks with authority on this subject. I only know that large numbers of tenants of properties in the Highlands have had their property taken over by the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, which I would not call a


rapacious landlord. This is a small Measure; it is a paltry Measure; but if it succeeds in doing what possibly some of its supporters would like it to do—that is, to secure them much-needed support at the next Election—at least it has my blessing.

6.53 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): The measure of the minimum of praise showered upon this Bill by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) is perhaps in direct disproportion to the value of this Bill. It certainly gives me great pleasure to shepherd this small but important Bill through its final stages. It is not a paltry Bill. Hon. Members opposite recognise that it sets out to remedy an evil which unfortunately has crept into our social life. It will remove considerable hardship which from experience we know has existed in Scotland—hardship which has exercised the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is, however, something even more important than the general acceptance which this Bill has received. I refer to what I hope is a general acceptance of the underlying principle that when a situation develops in our communal life, whereby a certain section of the community is liable to be penalised by another section of the community, all parties in this House will be prepared to unite to remove that evil irrespective of where the blow may strike.
I wish to make the point that when questions were raised prior to this Bill being introduced they were confined to a demand to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he should implement the recommendations of certain committees. Those recommendations were confined to the narrow limit of shop premises in Scotland. Having regard to that fact, I must deprecate the attempts from various quarters either to level criticism or to get some support from other sections of the community. In this I am afraid that I must include the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith)—

Commander Galbraith: I only said what was true.

The Lord Advocate: We were invited at a late stage to incorporate into the Bill a type of premises which had not been

dealt with by the Committee. This a temporary Measure. What happens in the future will depend on circumstances and the final Guthrie Report. It is perhaps satisfactory to observe the approval which the more general application of this doctrine is receiving from hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. We shall certainly bear that in mind when the time comes.
Not only is this a temporary Measure but it is one designed to get quick and effective procedure. For that reason we invoke not only the assistance of the sheriff but the procedure of the small debt court. If there is any danger that the sheriff court may be inundated with applications—which I doubt except perhaps in the big cities—provision is made for a temporary extension of tenancy for a period up to three months to enable the sheriff finally to dispose of the application. To give any right of appeal from the sheriff would not only be contradictory of the small debt procedure but would affect the streamlined procedure which we have developed in this Bill.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) said that he hoped that my right hon. Friend and I would take steps to see that neither the landlord nor the tenant abused the Bill. That is not within our compass. The matter now lies with the court. It will be for the court to deal with these cases and with any suggestion of abuse. However, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for their co-operation in enabling us to put this Measure through its various stages with expedition. We desire to get this Bill on the Statute Book as early as possible. The sooner we do that the sooner the umbrella will go up to protect the people whom this Bill is designed to protect. As the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok said, the Measure was improved during its passage. It is true that only two Amendments were added to the Bill, but still it was improved.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Since the Lord Advocate views this Bill as of such importance, and since the Home Secretary is in the House, may I ask why we have not got similar legislation in England?

Commander Galbraith: I am sure that the Lord Advocate did not wish to misrepresent me just now when he indicated that at a late stage of this Measure I had taken action to extend the scope of the Bill. On the Second Reading, I said:
As at present advised, it is my intention in Committee to put down an Amendment to include premises other than shops."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 9th February, 1949; c. 14.]
In these circumstances I hope that the Lord Advocate will withdraw that reflection.

The Lord Advocate: I did not intend to infer that it was at a late stage of the Bill. What I meant was that it was at a late stage in the proceedings so far as this type of remedy was concerned. There is no doubt about that, because for months the request was that we should implement the Taylor Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7.0 p.m.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of Order. As this is the first Private Bill discussed in this House and brought forward on behalf of a nationalised industry, I do not know whether it would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, for you to give a Ruling as to the permissible scope of the Debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for having given me notice. I can say that this is a general purpose Bill, and, in view of the position of the British Transport Commission, the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Fitzroy on 24th February, 1938, is no longer in force. The Debate, therefore, can extend beyond the contents of the Bill, though it must remain related to its purpose and not traverse the constitution and powers of the Commission, which have already been settled by Parliament.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand that Ruling to mean that it will be permissible, if hon. Members so desire, to raise matters concerning the administration of the Commission, for example, on such subjects as fares, the operation of particular lines and so on.

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that one could not challenge the decision of the House that the railways were to be nationalised, as that has been decided, but matters of fares, administration and everything else in this Bill would, I think, be in Order. Beyond that, such matters as road transport, which is not connected with this Bill at all, would not be in Order.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): On a point of Order. On that question of fares, may I submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, the Transport Act, under which the Commission are directed with regard to any matters which relate to fares, to prepare a charges scheme within two years, unless it is otherwise postponed by order of the Minister, and submit it to the Charges Tribunal?

Mr. Speaker: This is a general purposes Bill, and really covers administration. I think there can be no question about that under our Parliamentary Rules.

Mr. Ernest Davies: You have just stated, Mr. Speaker, that road transport was excluded from this discussion, but I think that, if you look up the Bill, you will see certain provisions regarding depots, bus garages and the conversion of trams to trolley buses and so on, all of which relate to road transport.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, the Debate can be wider than I expected.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the light of the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Speaker, the remarks which I desire to address on this Bill will fall into two parts. The first part will relate to specific Clauses of the Bill which it seems to me should have the attention of this House directed to them at this moment in order that the Select Committee to which the Bill will ultimately go shall have its attention drawn in advance to possibly objectionable Clauses. The second part consists of certain observations which I desire to make on the more general


aspects of the Commission's work. Perhaps I may be allowed—and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate this—to express satisfaction that it may be possible to discuss on the Floor of the House certain matters which the right hon. Gentleman has not so far shown undue precipitancy in bringing before the House.
As regards specific Clauses, they are not, with one or two exceptions, matters of major principle, but yet they are matters which I think should have attention directed to them. It is important that this procedure should be followed in this case, because, from the very nature of the body promoting the Bill, a national, universal monopoly under a nationalised corporation, any powers that it seeks are, in the nature of things, far more important than those sought in the past by railway companies which covered only part of the country, and which were, in many other respects, less dangerous bodies than the enormous monopoly promoting this Bill.
The first Clause to which I will call attention is Clause 5. This provides for certain works, and the particular works which I have in mind are those specified as "Work No. 1"—the widening of the District Railway. Hon. Members who have the misfortune to travel regularly on that line, and particularly on its central portion, know that travelling conditions in the rush hours are considerably above capacity, and that the amount of discomfort and injury to health suffered twice daily in London by millions of people proceeding to and fro is a very serious factor indeed.
As I understand it, this proposal is for a widening of this railway for only 1,600 yards in the Borough of Ealing; that is to say, well out from the centre of London; and it seems to me that the mere widening of the track in some of the outer sections of the railway cannot but have as its short-term effect an increase of congestion in central London. If the object is to have more trains on the outer part of the line, there must be fewer in proportion on the already overcrowded lines of central London. That is a very serious matter for all hon. Members concerned with London constituencies, and it would seem likely to tend to accentuate what is indeed the most dismal farce in the whole of London's

transport—the interaction of the Inner Circle line upon the District Railway.
The Inner Circle may be described as the last remaining piece of medieval London, and this line, which intersects the District Line slightly to the west of Gloucester Road Station, does impose probably more strain on the temper and blood vessels of its passengers than any other line in the London area. The complete uncertainty of its timetables, the prolonged and apparently inexplicable delays in which they indulge, for example, under the dreaming spires of South Kensington, are matters which do arouse the exasperation of a very large number of our fellow citizens, and cost the country in man-hours of work an impressive total every year and add unlimited injury to health. If it is the intention of these provisions to effect some improvement in conditions on this line, we would welcome it, but I do not think it should be thought that the mere widening of 1,600 yards of track alone is anything more than a palliative which may lead to a worsening of the situation.
I should like to hear from the Minister whether the Transport Commission are aware of the appalling conditions of travel upon these lines and what steps are being taken to improve them. One step which could be taken without any construction being done, and which would greatly improve conditions of travel, would be effected if the local staff at the stations could be informed of the position of oncoming trains and be instructed to inform passengers. At High Street, Kensington, no one ever has the faintest idea when the next Inner Circle train will come or when it will leave, and therefore, intending passengers with engagements to keep are left in the exasperating position of not having the faintest idea whether they can keep their engagements or not. The technique of informing the public of the position of the trains would greatly ease the situation.
The other matter which I have vainly tried to raise with the Minister on many occasions is that, certainly at High Street, Kensington and other stations, completely inaccurate forecasts of the direction of the next train regularly appear on the indicator. One is informed that an Inner Circle train is coming in, but a train travelling in the opposite direction, probably to Putney, makes its unwelcome


appearance. As the result of bad administration this merely increases personal inconvenience. I hope we are going to be able to persuade this colossal transport monopoly to take vigorous steps to improve the position. With regard to further specific Clauses—

Mr. Ernest Davies: Why did not private enterprise do it before?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman knows too much about transport to believe that London Transport was in the hands of unrestricted private enterprise for many years before the war. He knows perfectly well that was not so. Therefore, I do not understand the purpose of his intervention.
Among the small points on the Bill which I think will merit the attention of the Committee is, for example, Clause 9 which provides that the Commission shall not be compelled when they rebuild two road bridges over the track to rebuild them any wider than they are at present. So far, so good, but there is no comparable provision that they shall not rebuild them more narrowly. It seems, in the interests of the public, that if the Commission are free from obligation to build a bigger bridge, they should also be under an obligation to build one which is not any smaller.
A point of considerable importance is that throughout the Bill provision is made for the Commission to take the land underneath rights of way or paths which are stopped up under the Bill without payment of any compensation of any sort to anybody. It is well known, of course, that the rights of the landowner remain even underneath the highway, and the old doctrine of law was that the property in the land went down in a somewhat triangular shape to the centre of the earth. There does not seem to be any particular reason why the Transport Commission should help themselves to this land without paying any compensation to anybody. That seems a point which is highly material.
In passing, it is worthy of note that there are two provisions in the Bill for the increasing of charges to the public. The first is for an increase of dock charges at Hull. We may possibly be given the reason for that. Then there is a very unfortunate provision in a later Clause that the Transport Commission

shall increase the charge it makes to the Metropolitan Water Board for water. In view of the Government's policy of asking private businesses to hold prices where they are, it seems very odd that the first private Bill promoted by the first nationalised industry to submit one includes a Clause providing for an increase in the price of a necessity of life. It, at any rate, calls for some explanation. What is perhaps curious is that the very Clause which provides for this increase provides by Subsection (2) for machinery for settling subsequent variations in price. It does not seem unreasonable to demand why that machinery could not be employed now. Why an arbitrary increase retrospective to 1st January, 1948, should be imposed by a private Bill seems to call for some explanation.
There is only one other point on the Bill itself, and that occurs in the Fourth Schedule. In the Fourth Schedule the Transport Commission are given power to use two particular sites in the Royal and ancient borough of Kingston-upon-Thames in order
To provide an omnibus garage and depot, and to provide the same with one or more means of access …
A rather similar provision is made a little more than half way down the Fourth Schedule. It so happens that both those sites adjoin a substantial residential area where there is also a very high congestion of population. The Abercrombie plan made it clear that the congestion of population in this area, hemmed in between the river and the Royal parks, was higher than perhaps in any other part of the London area It seems a little harsh that a London Transport garage together with all the noise inevitably associated with it should be dumped down close to residential property.
At any rate, it is a matter that calls for very stringent inquiry as to why this site, closer to the residences of more people than any alternative site, has been selected. I do not want to labour the point, and I understand that representations will be forthcoming at a later stage to the appropriate committee, but the matter should be referred to now. So much for the points of detail on the Bill which I readily concede to the right hon. Gentleman are matters mainly for the


Select Committee, but to which its attention can perhaps profitably be drawn.
Now as to the broader matters which arise and which are matters that inevitably affect a very large part of our population. In the first place, I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement made by his Parliamentary Private Secretary at Slough on 17th January this year to the effect that workmen's fares might be abolished—

Mr. David Jones: May I clear up that point immediately? I did not make that statement. I attempted to make it quite clear in my statement that I was speaking purely for myself, and that what I said had no relation to the Minister of Transport or to the B.T.C.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman made the statement purely on his own account, but I equally understand that it was made.

Mr. Jones: The statement I made—not the statement reported—in regard to the regulations relating to the issue of workmen's fares, was my private view.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman must realise that his personal relationship to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Department, does invest what he says on this subject with more authority than if it were said by any other hon. Member.

Mr. Jones: That is why I am trying to make it clear that I was speaking purely from my own point of view.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the difficulty which he has caused, no doubt quite unwittingly. He made it clear that he was speaking in his personal capacity, but he is, and is known to be, Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Obviously, therefore, he is better informed about the activities of that Department and what is under consideration in the Department than any other hon. Members, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman says anything like that, it gives to the millions of people affected considerable disquiet. The fact that he has said it is a fact which causes

disquiet, and, therefore, we are entitled to ask the Minister for a statement as to the position. No one is suggesting that the Minister is bound by what his Parliamentary Private Secretary says I notice the right hon. Gentleman's obvious relief at that. What we are suggesting is that, as a result of his Parliamentary Private Secretary's speech, there is now considerable disquiet in the matter which could perfectly easily be allayed by a statement from the right hon. Gentleman.
Then there is the rather interlocked subject of half fares for children. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been pressing the right hon. Gentleman to consider raising the age for half fares from 14 to 15. It is quite obvious that 14 was originally selected as coinciding with the school age. The school age has now been raised, and there would appear to be some logical case for raising the half fare age to 15 because, in the nature of things, persons compulsorily at school are not in a position to earn money as easily as if they were over school age. Perhaps on this subject of fares we could hear a little from the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, on the subject of fares I think we are entitled to an even broader statement. Hon Members who have studied this matter know that the general financial position of the railways, despite recent severe increases in fares, is far from satisfactory.
There is good reason to believe that the increased earnings expected from the increase of fares are not being realised because of the decline of traffic. I think I am entitled to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was warned of this very matter as long ago as 26th June, 1946, when I moved a Motion to annul a Statutory Instrument under which fares were raised. As will be seen in column 1449 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that day, I urged on the right hon. Gentleman that it was not a wise move to deal with falling revenue by raising charges, as the inevitable consequence would be a substantial decline in traffic and, therefore, he would not get the extra revenue he expected I urged that on the right hon. Gentleman over two-and-a-half years ago and I think that, now that exactly what I and other hon. Members forecast seems to be coming about, we are entitled to remind the right hon. Gentleman, not merely for the satisfaction of saying that we were


right but from the far more important point of view of trying to make him realise that it is a very dangerous policy to pursue. At any rate, we have some right to press this question on the right hon. Gentleman.
When the Transport Commission, for the particular benefit of the railways, comes forward with a request for all sort of powers for all sort of works, it is surely right that this House should insist upon being informed of the financial position and prospects of the Commission, the more so as we have every reason to believe its position is far from satisfactory. The unsatisfactory nature of its position is, of course, accentuated by the fact that large and substantial wage claims are still in issue. So far as is known, that matter has not been resolved at all, but if the unions are successful in their claim of course the financial position will become even more acute. These points are of great concern to hon. Members, as representatives of our constituents who, after all, are ultimately the owners of these railways.
There is a form of extravagance by the railways which we are entitled to urge is quite inappropriate at this moment and I refer, in particular, to the fantastic waste of money involved in certain of the advertising in which the Railways Executive indulges. I hold in my hand one specimen which includes a very nice little picture, which might well have been drawn by a child of six, of a railway train and wagons underneath which appears these words:
Raw materials, finished products, the food you eat, the clothes you wear—so many requirements of everyday life—depend largely on rail transport.
Underneath are the words:
British Railways linking supply with demand.
The sentiments of that advertisement are, no doubt, admirable, but what is their particular relevance to the financial or other interests of British Railways? Is it really suggested that one person reading this statement, "British Railways linking supply with demand" goes and buys a railway ticket and travels somewhere?
It is quite clear that these advertisements, which all hon. Members have seen, are simply a waste of money. At any rate, since the nationalisation of the railways

they serve no useful economic purpose at all. If the financial position of the railways were so much better, if the right hon. Gentleman were able to assure us of large surpluses, we might not take up the matter so much, but at a time when we know the position is the exact reverse, when we know how bad it is, I think we are entitled to urge that foolish extravagances of this sort should be brought to a standstill. If this House is to give further powers to the Transport Commission I think it is entitled, at the same time, to insist that the Commission uses its existing powers with more prudence, more wisdom and more economy and to insist that a little less of this kind of thing would be more appropriate to the Commission's financial position and to that of the nation.
There is the further question of staff. The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that, notwithstanding the fall in traffic, there has been quite a substantial increase in staff. The figures which I have of the staff at the beginning of the year were 782,295 and the latest figures, towards the end of last year, show that they had risen to 807,824. That is a substantial increase in staff at a time when actual traffic is declining, and one is left to speculate whether that increase is not due to the tendencies we have seen at work in other nationalised industries, the tendencies for overgrown headquarters staffs to be superimposed upon the operating personnel. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to explain where these increases are. If they are increases which directly serve the public, there will no doubt be an excellent case for them, but when they coincide, as I have said, with falling traffic, one is left wondering whether a little more of this administrative empire building with which hon. Members are so familiar in other nationalised industries is not taking place in this sphere. At any rate, we are left in some doubt on this matter.
I have no doubt that many hon. Members have points affecting railways administration which they desire to raise, because I suppose there is hardly any subject which more directly affects more of one's constituents than this subject. Perhaps I may close by saying that a very large number of my constituents travel daily on grossly overcrowded railways to and from their work. They


have endured that during the war and subsequently because they have believed that everything possible was being done to improve the position; but they are becoming a little impatient when they see no improvement in the appalling conditions in which they have to travel to work. They are beginning to wonder whether the Transport Commission has really applied its mind and its resources to a practical solution of the admittedly grave problem of moving many millions of people in and out of London during every morning and every evening. We should welcome it if the right hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity to explain to them and to many others that everything possible is being done. If we could be told of concrete steps which are being taken to improve the old Southern Railway lines running, in particular, into Waterloo we should welcome that, as no doubt other hon. Members would welcome statements of other improvements affecting their constituents.
I have taken advantage of the opportunity which the presentation of this Bill has offered to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that in the public mind all is not well with the Railway Executive, that the public are not satisfied with the services they are getting and that if the Commission is to obtain further powers from Parliament or to retain any degree of public confidence drastic improvements will have to be effected in the immediate future.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I welcome, and I am sure the House will welcome, your Ruling, Sir, on the Debate which is to take place on this Bill because, as hon. Members are only too well aware, we are finding it rather difficult to raise on the Floor of this House matters relating to the nationalised industries. On this occasion the precedent has been set whereby, when the various boards or commissions present their private Bills to Parliament, we may have a general discussion within the ambit of the Bill on the nationalised industry, and I am sure that will be very welcome.
I felt, however, that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) did not take full advantage of the opportunity, for he raised mainly a number of rather minor points,

such as, for instance, advertising. I felt that he might have been able to go a little further than he did. But he did bring in, on the one hand, the whole question of fares and, on the other hand, the question of the rush-hour traffic in and around London. I think I should be correct in pointing out to him the reason why there are no further powers in this Bill in connection with the improvement of the British Transport Commission's system in and around London. Many of the powers for the extension of the tubes and for further capital works are already in the hands of the Commission. If the hon. Member turns to the last schedule in the Bill, the Fifth Schedule, I think he will find that the extension of many of these orders is to enable these further works to be undertaken within the time limit which is set down, which in some cases is December, 1952, and in other cases 1955.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have looked into the matter, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Schedule, but I think he has overlooked the fact that certain specific powers with respect to the London area are set out in Clause 5.

Mr. Davies: Yes, but the fact remains that powers do rest in the Commission at the present time.
The problem of traffic in and out of London daily, and in particular at rush hours, is one which is concerning the metropolis very much at present. We recently had a Debate on the Adjournment regarding the area of North London. We were then informed by the Parliamentary Secretary that a working party had been set up by the Transport Commission and that the working party had produced a report. I understand that this is now in the hands of the Ministry of Transport.
It would be very welcome to all Members representing London constituencies, and Greater London constituencies in particular, if the findings of the working party regarding the proposals for the extension or improvement of railway facilities in and around London were published. It seems to me that it is very desirable that if proposals regarding the solution of the problem of London traffic are made, those proposals should be available for discussion by the public


who are so concerned and by hon. Members of this House. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary if, in reply, he will indicate to us whether there is a likelihood of the proposals of the working party being published in the near future.
The question of fares, in my view, is very closely related to the solution of this problem. What concerns me most at the moment regarding the British Transport Commission and the nationalised transport system generally is the loss of traffic to the railways as a result of the sharp increase in fares which took place at the end of 1947. If one looks at the very useful transport statistics which are published monthly by the British Transport Commission, one cannot help experiencing considerable concern at the trend of traffic at the moment. For instance, one finds that during the year ended 31st December last, there was a fall of over 7 per cent. in the number of journeys on the lines of the old four mainline companies, that is, on railways of the British Transport Commission. The total journeys were 928 million, which were 71 million journeys fewer than in the previous year.
It is true that by following the progressive policy of re-introducing excursions and cheap fares the Transport Commission has succeeded in attracting to the railways a very large number of passengers who might otherwise not have travelled. There was a very large increase in the numbers who were availing themselves of the excursion, weekend and cheap day tickets. In fact, the increase was something in the nature of 138 per cent. Unfortunately, however successful was the policy of introducing these excursions, the fact remains that during the year there has been a steady fall in the number of persons using the railways, and in particular those using season tickets. The fall in the case of season tickets was in the nature of 15½ per cent. It is here, I think, that the railways have to go out to get back the traffic to the railways which is being lost to them.
People who formerly held season tickets are those who travel to work daily, and they must continue to travel to work daily. If they are no longer travelling by rail by the use of season tickets they are using other forms of transport—they still go to work daily. Because the cost

of rail travel has increased and is so high today, people are turning to cheaper forms of transport even where cheaper forms are less comfortable, take longer and entail queueing.
We see that around London in particular, because we are more acquainted with it during the week. I know perfectly well that, so far as my constituency of Enfield is concerned, a very large number of people who used to travel by the Enfield Town to Liverpool Street line are now travelling by tube and trolley-bus or by trolley-bus all the way. That takes far longer, but the road transport fares are almost half the rail fares. It makes a considerable difference to a worker's weekly budget if he is able to save half the cost of his travel.
What is happening in relation to daily travel, which is represented by the normal season ticket travel, is also happening in the country so far as bus and coach journeys are concerned. There is no question but that the normal family man today cannot afford to make long-distance travel by train. If he wants to take his wife and family away for a holiday, it is quite impossible for him to take them any distance by rail because the cost is far too great. The consequence is that they go by coach when coaches are available. One can easily quote cases where the cost by coach is half the cost by rail. In other words, two can travel by coach as against one by rail. It is known to me that the coaches from certain urban areas to London and to seaside resorts are already fully booked up for July and August. In other words, if one goes now to a coach station and endeavours to book tickets to take one's family away in July, the places on the coach are not available. The reason is that more and more people are travelling by road because of the high cost of railway fares.
Having made that criticism, I want to suggest a solution of the problem. The solution is not that which has been suggested in some quarters, and which is unfairly and unjustifiably thrown across to us from opposite Benches on occasion. It is not to increase coach or bus fares. The solution is to bring railway fares down to a level which will re-attract the people on to the railways. It can be done by the use of a little


imagination on the part of the British Transport Commission. For instance, on this question of holiday travel, would it not be possible to introduce some scheme whereby a family ticket would be available for the family going away on holiday? There are many cases in which these cheap fare, excursion and special ticket facilities can be extended.
The excursions at present are circumscribed by far too many restrictions. If a person takes a return bus ticket he can use that return ticket whenever he wishes. With an excursion ticket on the railway one has to travel at a certain time and return at a certain time, and if it is a cheap day ticket one cannot travel between certain hours. All these restrictions which circumscribe the issue of cheap fares and excursions are preventing full advantage being taken of them. As I say, I think a careful study of this position and the use of imagination by the British Transport Commission could lead to some alleviation of the hardship from which the average family in this country is suffering because of the high railway fares. There are several ways in which traffic can be attracted back. The chief way is to increase progressively the cheap fare facilities and to remove the restrictions on them. The second way is to reduce the cost to the daily traveller to work.
People who go to work daily must be catered for by enabling them to travel more cheaply than they do at the present time. As long as railway fares remain at their present levels and cheaper facilities are available, people will use those cheaper facilities. I suggest that the Commission carefully consider workmen's fares. There is an anomaly in existence whereby a person who is working upon the early morning shift can travel before 8 a.m. at workmen's fare, but if he is on a later shift he has to pay the full fare. There is no logic or justification whatsoever for that situation. I suggest that an effort should be made to reduce the general level of fares to all people who travel to work daily. The rates of weekly season tickets should be reduced to a point certainly not more than only a little higher than workmen's fares. Only by reducing the cost of the weekly ticket shall we get the regular traveller back to the railways

and thereby use the facilities which are there rather than uneconomically increase road facilities and the use of petrol for which we have to pay dollars.
My reason for putting these suggestions forward is not only in relation to the question whether the railways will or will not pay. That is not the important test. We have today facilities for economic transport in this country. There is capital investment in the railways, and the rolling stock and facilities are there. We all see trains which are only partially filled and we see at the same time queues waiting for buses, trams and trolley buses. We see congestion in the coaches, and so forth. If by adjusting railway fares we were able to attract people to the most economical form of transport, we would be taking advantage of nationalisation and bringing relief to the people who suffer from the discomfort and congestion of road traffic. The ultimate solution to congestion, particularly around London, is electrification and capital development, but that is a long-term solution.
I should like to refer to the loss not only of passengers to the railways but also of goods and freight traffic. Here, again, the problem is one of high charges. Those charges increased during 1947 and there has again been a drift from the railways to the roads. The main cause of that is not any longer a shortage of wagons or facilities, but that the roads offer goods transport more cheaply than railways at the present time, as was the case before the war. One of the indications is the very great increase which has taken place in the issue of "C" licences. That is a matter to which the Minister should give his most serious attention. Hon. Members will be aware of the figures published from time to time, but I should like to remind them of the fact that there has been nearly a doubling of the number of "C" licences issued since 1938. In 1938, the number was 365,000. By 1946, just after the war, it had increased only to 410,000. By 1947, the increase was to 487,000. By March, 1948, the figure was up to 504,000, and last November the number of "C" licences was 593,000. The total increase, therefore, over prewar was 228,000.
One can readily imagine the amount of traffic which those vehicles are carrying


and which might be more economically carried on the railways. It is true that a very large number of those vehicles are engaged in the retail trade, with which no one would wish to interfere, and that there was a certain increase due to the ability to get red petrol for a time with these vehicles. Even if those figures be deducted, the fact remains that there is a very large increase in the number of "C" licences on the roads. At the time of the Transport Bill we had a considerable discussion on the matter whether "C" licences should be brought in. In the end it was decided that they should not be brought in. I thought it was a mistake then, and I still think it was a great mistake. It will be one of the biggest handicaps of the British Transport Commission in getting economic traffic to the railways which the railways are able to carry. One supports the Bill, of course, and hopes that the Transport Commission is taking account of the very serious factors with which it is concerned, the first of which is the loss of passenger traffic from the railways to the roads.
We should like to know from the Minister whether he is prepared to tell us tonight what the British Transport Commission is doing and what it is proposing to do to meet the gradual increase of road traffic and the decrease of rail traffic. The second factor is the high charges which the railways make on both passenger and goods traffic. What is the position of the charges scheme which, under the Act, has to be drawn up? Is it possible for interim schemes to be made and interim action to be taken? We have been told by the Chairman of the Transport Commission in a speech that it will take more than the two years which the Road Act requires for the formulation of charges schemes. If it is going to take more than two years I do not think the public can wait those two years before some action is taken. I do not think that the Transport Commission can wait for two years before action is taken, because the position will worsen if no action is taken. I suggest the possibility of making interim charges schemes for particular types of traffic, passengers in certain categories and possibly for goods. There can thus be consideration given to the difficulties which the railways face at the present time.
Finally, I ask the Minister whether he will be in a position tonight to give

us an indication of the policy of the Transport Commission regarding the acquisition of road transport, and particularly of road passenger transport. We are very much concerned on this side of the House at the high cost of acquisition of certain of the large bus companies. We have been concerned at the very high price which it was found necessary to pay to Thomas Tilling, and at the very high price it was found necessary to pay to Scottish Motor Traction. So far as I can make out, the maximum price which would have had to be paid under the Bill had these concerns been compulsorily acquired was paid by the Transport Commission. It works out, so far as I can gather from the figures published, at about seven years' purchase of the assets value, and that is the maximum which is allowed under the Act.
Is it proposed that the Transport Commission should continue to acquire road passenger concerns by negotiation, and to pay these high prices in order to bring within its ambit all road passenger transport? When it has done so, if it has paid excessive prices it will have to charge more for road transport. If fares go up, it will be because of the greed of the companies that hon. Members opposite are inclined to support, and not because of nationalisation. Be that as it may, I ask the Minister whether it would not be cheaper in the long run for the Transport Commission to formulate the passenger area schemes provided for in the Act, and then under the Act to enter into working arrangements and acquire compulsorily under those schemes, rather than to proceed by way of negotiation as at present, which is resulting in the payment of unnecessary prices for the acquisition of road transport concerns.
One welcomes the opportunity provided by this Bill for raising important matters concerning the Transport Commission, and one trusts that the Transport Commission will take into account the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House tonight, and that we shall be given some indication of the policy of the Commission regarding the matters raised.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: It is indeed a happy opportunity that we have tonight to discuss the working of the nationalised railway system of this


country, but before proceeding to more general questions I wish to follow the example set by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and refer to a certain matter of detail in the Bill itself; and that is Clause 37, whereby the Transport Commission proposes to take over the Holyhead harbour which was previously owned by the old London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. I hope that before the Select Committee gives the Transport Commission this Clause, it will extract an assurance from the Commission that it will undertake to improve the facilities at this harbour. They are little short of disgraceful. The passengers on the Irish night mail arrive inevitably at an awkward hour—about 2.0 a.m.—and during the winter have to stand for considerable periods exposed to the strong gales and winds that blow in the Irish Sea at that time of year. The cover and protection from the elements is quite inadequate, and the passengers are treated like so many Irish cattle going in the opposite direction—

Mr. Cecil Poole: No worse than before the war.

Mr. Erroll: —herded through gangways and treated in a most peremptory manner. In answer to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole), I would point out that conditions are very much worse now than before the war.

Mr. Poole: In what respect are they worse now than before the war? It was almost impossible for them to be any worse.

Mr. Erroll: Obviously, the hon. Member has not travelled to Ireland recently or he would realise that the "impossible" has become an actual fact. The conditions are certainly very much worse.

Mr. Poole: How?

Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there was more covered accommodation on the dockside before the war than there is now?

Mr. Erroll: No, but I was not here then to protest. I should have done so had I been here. I am sure the hon. Member would not be so complacent as to expect a pre-

war standard for all time. I am urging that, now that we have a nationalised undertaking, we should have some improvements. Let us have something for all the waste that is taking place while nationalisation is going on. And let us have some efficiency during the summer months. Despite the introduction of sailing tickets to prevent undue congestion at Holyhead, on a number of occasions something seems to go wrong. Either too many trains arrive or there are not enough ships to take away the passengers waiting at Holyhead, or on the return journey too many ships arrive in the harbour and there are not enough trains. At the height of the holiday season it is not an uncommon occurrence for large numbers of passengers to be stranded in the comparatively small town of Holy-head, unable to get any form of rest, food, or accommodation.
That is a state of affairs which is quite intolerable when the system of sailing tickets has been introduced. I could understand that if anybody could get on a train he might have to take pot luck when he got to the harbour, but in actual fact the arrangements are strictly controlled—or they are supposed to be—during the peak periods in the summer. In actual fact, mistakes arise because of inefficient management, or insufficient arrangements of some sort. The Railway Hotel at Holyhead, too, is remarkable for lack of courtesy and tact in dealing with stranded passengers. I hope the Select Committee will be quite stern in this matter before passing Clause 37.
I now wish to turn to several general aspects of railway affairs at the present time. I think that on the passenger side the greatest single cause for complaint today is lack of punctuality. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members opposite will have an opportunity to state their points of view later on. This lack of punctuality still persists. I know there has been an improvement. There is plenty of room for improvement. Everything else has improved since the war, and the improvements have been most striking in the field of private enterprise. Improvements have lagged behind most in the nationalised undertakings, of which the railway system is one. Hence my complaint. Were everything still bad today, still at the necessarily austere war time standards, it would be understandable;


but the railways seem to lag behind in this matter of improvement quite unnecessarily.
We know that on many lines there are restrictions due to works being undertaken—works, for example, which are enumerated in this Bill, works which are to go on for several years. However, no attempt is made by the railways to modify the publicly issued timetables to take into account the delays which must inevitably result. There is a completely complacent attitude of mind which simply says, "Well, the trains run late so often that the travelling public knows they do not run to time. So why bother?" That reveals a faulty mental approach to the whole matter. The railways receive a tremendous amount of credit if ever a train arrives a few minutes early. Why not modify the time tables so that there is a reasonable chance that all the trains arrive on time? If, occasionally, they arrive early, it will be a tremendous boon for the poor, unfortunate passenger.
For people who are busy today nothing is more frustrating than to find the trains running behind advertised times of arrival. I know there are difficulties, but difficulties are there to be overcome. I do not think the railways are showing nearly enough disposition to overcome difficulties of management, difficulties of equipment and difficulties of personnel which are common to all engaged in industry and other activities at the present time. Much more could be done than is being done to ensure punctual time keeping. It is my misfortune to travel regularly on the main line between London and Manchester. In the three and a half years that I have been doing that since the war, I have arrived at my destination punctually only twice—and I have made the journey more than a hundred times. Admittedly the delay is sometimes only a matter of a few minutes, but often it has been well over an hour, and that is quite unjustifiable today, three-and-a-half years after the war is over. The trains on a single day vary considerably. The 12.15 from Euston to Manchester will arrive 12 minutes late, and the 6 o'clock train on the same line will be one-and-a-quarter hours late. No explanation is given and no attempt is made to alleviate the inconvenience caused to the travelling public, with taxis and cars waiting and wives waiting at the station unable to get any information

even as to the extent of the delay so that they could go away and come back again. The station staff is quite indifferent to the fate of the passengers.
Only a few weeks ago, a friend of mine had the experience of travelling from North to South on this line. His train, which was due to arrive at Stockport at 12.20 a.m., did not come into Stockport station until after 3 o'clock in the morning, and no facilities were given to the passengers stranded in the middle of the night. No explanation was offered and no one took the trouble to phone through to London Road Station to find out what had gone wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), who shares these agonies with me, says, "Nobody cares." That should be the motto of the British Railways—"Nobody cares." That is one of the reasons why traffic is declining on the railways and going over to the buses, where there is an element of courtesy and a desire to please, and conditions are reasonably efficient.
One has to put up with lack of amenities which would not be tolerated by the shop stewards in any engineering workshop under private enterprise. To quote one detail, the passenger lavatories at Euston are far worse than the lavatories that would be tolerated in a large engineering works today. There is no justification for such squalor at a main line station, nor is there in the region of that particular station any great shortage of suitable staff to maintain these conveniences in a proper and fit state. The trouble is that the railway management have got into a complacent frame of mind and are prepared to let the passengers "lump it." Hon. Members may regard that as a detail; but why does the roof still leak at Euston station, and why has one to pick one's way between puddles when it is raining when one goes to catch a train there? When one goes to Harrod's, one does not expect to find the roof leaking, but when one goes by British Railways one can easily expect and get the very worst.
It would be possible to make a lot of easy points about the standard of railway refreshments. I know that the railways have their difficulties. They have had difficulties, as an hon. Member pointed out, for the last 50 years. I think that it is only fair before proceeding to


my strictures to pay a tribute to the remarkable courtesy of the uniformed staffs of the refreshment cars on the railways. I think that they do their best under very difficult and extremely wobbly conditions.
A particular matter to which I should like to draw attention is the growing habit of the uniformed railway staff to make use of the passenger refreshment facilities at the principal stations. I think that it is a very bad sign to see the uniformed railway staff drinking, whether on duty or in the break, alcoholic beverages in the passengers' refreshment rooms. It is not that I am against alcoholic refreshment, but there is a place and a time for all these things. It looks very bad when one sees the uniformed staff drinking in railway stations. It may be quite innocent and perfectly in order, but among members of the public who have mentioned this to me there is undoubtedly an apprehension growing up that when these members of the staff resume their duties they may not be any the better for their indulgence. I am sure that it would not be appreciated if bus drivers, for example, were to be found drinking a few pints of beer before driving their buses out of Victoria Coach Station.
I have been in correspondence on this matter, and I am told that it is a regulation of the railway executive that uniformed staff do not take alcoholic drinks during working hours. Is that a regulation which is observed except in the breach? What is wrong with their own staff facilities? It is significant that the railway staff at Waterloo may use the passenger facilities but the passengers are not allowed to use the staff facilities, which, I understand, are rather better. That is part of the new order—the new paradise which is undoubtedly being formulated.
I wish to turn next to the general problem of fares which, of course, is not an easy one to resolve, as the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) has mentioned. It is a very striking thing that the Socialists never thought of this particular point, namely, that when they raised the fares there would come a time when the customers would simply desist from consuming, and that state of affairs is approaching. It is easy to write in the

Nationalisation Acts that accounts must balance, taking one year with another.
If there is not enough money coming in, then put up the fares and that will achieve a balance. But to desist from consuming is something new which the Socialists have to learn, and it looks as if they are going to learn it not only on the railways but in connection with several of their other nationalised undertakings as well. The fact is that fares are higher than people are prepared to pay. Whether the people are going to return to the railways when the fares are lower is problematical. Many people prefer the more intimate and more pleasant method of travelling by coach, and they do not want to be driven back to the railways, even though they were induced to do so by cheaper fares on the railways and dearer fares on the coaches.
Reference has been made to the queues in London, but I assure hon. Members that the queues for buses in Manchester are far longer and worse than anything to be seen in the South. I am sure that arises from the London Passenger Transport Board having some sort of unwritten priority for new buses released for the home market. It is high time that the North of England had its share of the new buses. There is tremendous congestion in the rush hours in the North of England, particularly in Manchester.
There is in the Manchester area a small electric railway running between Manchester and Altrincham, and there is a particularly grievous form of anomaly which I hope that the Commission will seek at an early stage to remove. On the Manchester, Altrincham and South Junction Electric Railway there are cheap fares for workers up to 8 o'clock in the morning. There are then cheap day fares for housewives from 9 o'clock onwards; but during the hour from 8 to 9 o'clock, the regular travellers have to pay the full monthly return rate. That is a glaring anomaly.
I know that the whole rate structure which the new Executive has inherited is full of anomalies, and I know they are trying to rectify those anomalies, but it strikes me as a funny way of doing it by creating worse anomalies whereby the white-collared workers, mostly travelling between 8 and 9, have to pay far more for their necessary daily travelling than


any other class of workers. Particularly is it unfair when one realises how much the wage structure has changed in the last decade, when it is usually the manual workers who today are in receipt of bigger earnings than the white-collared workers. I am not talking of wage rates but of earnings.
The hon. Member for Enfield also referred to workmen's tickets out of hours. There is another injustice which I would like to point out and which ought to be rectified. There is some arrangement, I understand, whereby tickets at workmen's rates out of workmen's rate hours can be obtained, particularly for evening shifts as a result of the need for staggering working hours, by the production of a certificate from the employer. But that certificate must state that the man is a manual worker; he has to be a worker in the strict old-fashioned sense of the word. That seems a very unfair discrimination against another group of men: namely, the clerks, draughtsmen, and all the others, whose work is just as essential to Britain as anybody else's and who in many cases receive lower rates of pay.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I do not want to make the position worse than it is, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is an arrangement for allowing workmen's fares to shift workers only when their hours are staggered officially in connection with the electricity scheme.

Mr. Erroll: Yes, that is quite correct, and that means only manual workers.

Mr. Davies: Yes.

Mr. Erroll: The broad injustice remains; but there is an injustice within the injustice, and I thought that point would be worth bringing out tonight.

Mr. Keenan: Is the hon. Member now suggesting that we should abolish all other kinds of fares and get only cheap fares or workmen's tickets?

Mr. Erroll: No. The particular injustice I was referring to was the injustice within the injustice: namely, the fact that workmen's fares out of hours, given in certain cases, are granted only to manual workers. If there is to be a concession it should be granted to all workers who can obtain the necessary certificate.

Mr. Keenan: That means all workmen's tickets.

Mr. Erroll: No. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has missed my point. He is obviously not aware of the particular concession to which I was referring.
The hon. Member for Enfield made some very interesting references to the growth of "C" licences, and I think it should be clearly understood that many people are sending their goods by road because it is more convenient. It is a question not only of cost but of convenience, and the railways cannot expect to recover a lot of that traffic for the simple reason that it is very much more convenient to send the goods from door to door and have complete control over the moment of dispatch and the moment of receipt, which can be achieved only by road transport. The railways are at present showing up particularly badly in that respect.
Delays on the railways are extreme with freight movement. I should like to mention the instance of a firm moving its plant from an old site near Liverpool to the north-east coast, near Middlesbrough. They got a quotation for the job, but it was three weeks after the dispatch of the first consignment of machinery at Liverpool before its appearance at the Middlesbrough railway sidings—and that was only after intensive inquiries had been made, during which time the railway officials admitted that they simply did not know where the trucks had got to; when they were ultimately located in the Middlesbrough sidings it was discovered that they had been there for a whole week, but the Middlesbrough station staff had done nothing about it. That sort of management just is not good enough. It is small wonder that that particular firm sent the rest of its machinery by road, although it was more expensive; because they knew they could load it on one day and it would he in Middlesbrough the following day.
The railways have to compete with the efficiency of a better method of transport for many types of activity. Unless they really do try to improve considerably their traffic will be lost for all time. Mind you, a great deal of it gets lost today: railway pilferage has become a byword; one can never be sure of getting anything through without it having been tampered with. I know that a great deal


of the traffic gets through without being pilfered on the way; but the proportion which is pilfered is such that one cannot really have any feeling of security about sending something by rail. I should like to put this question to the House: Does any hon. Member feel happy about sending a trunk or a suitcase full of personal goods, unaccompanied, by rail today? The probability is that it will get through all right; but there is a very real measure of risk, and the railways must do something to reduce the pilferage which is now taking place.
Before concluding I want to make just a passing reference to engineering progress. I think that all who have noticed what has been taking place are delighted at the progressive outlook which the Railway Executive is taking about engineering matters. The swapping of locomotives to gain experience is a very happy idea which should lead to valuable results. It is, indeed, one of the results to which we are fully entitled as a result of nationalisation. Surely we are allowed to have one or two advantages from nationalisation? It has not got to be all loss; we must surely be allowed one or two gains; and I hope that some of the technical gains will bear fruit.
The danger is that what can be gained by that sort of move may be lost in an unnecessary amount of committee work. I understand that a large number of committees have been set up. Now, one does not get very far with progressive designing by means of committees. Committees may be all right for reviewing work already done, for bringing about standardisation, simplification, codifying rules, and so on. But when it is a question of designing a locomotive the designer must be given his head and allowed to get on with it. It is no good trying to get these things done by committees, and I urge the Railway Executive to cut down the number of design committees which they have at work and allow a few original thinking men to have their heads and go ahead in the right way.
With railway electrification I think we are in great danger of falling over ourselves backwards. Railway electrification of the traditional type was all right in the early 'twenties, and maybe in the

'thirties; but because it is all right for dense suburban lines it does not follow by any means that a system of electrification is the right thing for a modern British railway today. Great advances have taken place in the design and development of railway motive power. I need hardly mention the diesel-electric locomotives which are being tried out today—one of the last developments of the old London, Midland and Scottish Railway; there is also the possibility of utilising gas-turbine driven locomotives, and several other projects at present only in the experimental stage. We must not be led backwards to the old ideas of railway electrification; nor must we let new developments get bogged down in a mass of detailed committee work.
The same certainly applies to signal-ling. With trains running as they are today, with the large number of accidents which have taken place recently—and by "recently" I mean in the last couple of years—it is surely time for a radical overhaul of the signalling system, because some very serious defects have been brought to light in recent accident investigations. With signalling we must look forward, and not merely review the techniques of the past.
In conclusion, I should like to refer particularly to the courtesy with which Sir Cyril Hurcomb, the head of the Commission, replies to any point we may put to him. It must be a burden for him to have to deal personally with numbers of queries on railway matters. He deals with them more promptly than perhaps the Minister would do, and perhaps more explicitly. It is only fair to pay tribute to some of the work which is of great value to us. I hope, too, that the staffs of the old railway companies will not take this Debate amiss and feel resentful at our strictures, comments and criticisms. Now that the railways are nationalised they will surely realise that Parliament is the proper place for a discussion of these great public services.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I was at a loss in trying to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll). He said at one stage that nobody cares, and then went on to tell us about the progressive engineering programme of the Railway Executive.

Mr. Erroll: I thank the hon. Member for giving me this opportunity to clarify my remarks. I said that no one on the operational side seemed to care, but that there was quite a different approach on the engineering side.

Mr. Harrison: I find it very difficult to separate the operational side from the engineering side.

Mr. Erroll: The operational department is entirely separate from the engineering department.

Mr. Harrison: The first time I worked in the service was nearly 40 years ago, and therefore I ought to know the difference between the departments. I can assure the hon. Member that it is impossible for the Railway Executive to be progressive on the engineering side and not to care one iota about the other departments of British Railways. I think the hon. Member was exaggerating, probably unwittingly, as he will see when he comes to read HANSARD tomorrow.
I congratulate the hon. Member, however, on having drawn attention to the traditional restriction imposed on the railways by the better facilities that can be offered by road transport. That is an important factor which we must consider in relation to the future success of British Railways. I would point out to the hon. Member, when he says that no one cares, that there are nearly three-quarters of a million railwaymen in the country who are wedded to their jobs and are very concerned, not only with the present position of the railways but with the future of British Railways, because their livelihood is involved. The hon. Member referred to the law of diminishing returns, but I would remind him that at the close of the 1914–18 war, some of us in the railway service had a bitter experience on this question of the rate of fares and the amount of traffic we could attract to the railways. I can assure the hon. Member that this is not a new lesson. I entirely agree with his remarks about Holyhead. There is no doubt that, with the amount of traffic between this country and Ireland, the facilities there should be improved at the earliest opportunity beyond all recognition. At present the facilities are very elementary, uncomfortable and undesirable in every shape and form.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss generally the operations of British Railways. I particularly welcome Part II of the Bill which refers to powers to make works, and that part of it which refers to the widening of the railway between Radford and Basford stations. I think we should be very unwise to oppose the provisions in this Bill which will enable the Railway Executive and the other interests under the Transport Commission to proceed with very necessary works to Improve the service generally. In regard to Clause 46, which deals with the powers of the police, as to search and arrest, I should be glad if the Minister would tell us whether this involves any additional powers for arrest on suspicion. The Transport Commission and particularly the Railway Executive, have done a really good job in steadying or stopping the rapid decline in freight and passenger traffic that was so noticeable some months ago. The introduction of cheap fares—that is the single fare return—has attracted quite a large number of passengers back to the railways. Recent improvements in regard to handling freight have also resulted in a steadying down of the decline in freight traffic. I am sure we all welcome this check to declining traffic which the Railway Executive and the Transport Commission have been able to effect.
Overcrowding in rush hours is not confined to the London area. In most of our towns and cities where large housing estates have been developed, we can see passengers standing and otherwise inconvenienced during rush hours. I suggest that the staggering of hours has failed to overcome these difficulties, but when it is possible to provide new engines and coaches at a more rapid rate than at present it will go a long way towards relieving this pressure during rush hours. It must be remembered that we have had great difficulty in providing the necessary new engines and keeping the old ones in repair. However, that difficulty will pass as the supply of raw materials improves.
The public are not satisfied with the present position and I am sure that the railwaymen are not satisfied. I am, however, sure that the co-operation of the staff will be given in any effort British Railways or the Transport Commission make to improve the railway services generally. With some knowledge of the


position, I am pledging the goodwill of nearly 750,000 men and women engaged regularly in British Railways, and I make that pledge on the basis of the fact that those men and women know that the future of our railway industry is essential to their own well being.

8.31 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I want to draw attention to the position of those railway pensioners who draw their pensions on a pre-war scale and who are suffering serious hardships as a result of the increase in the cost of living. I have not given specific notice to the Minister of Transport that I intended to raise this tonight but he has had general notice, not only from me but a large number of other hon. Members, that this is a burning question.
Perhaps the best introduction would be for me to read an extract from a standard form of communication of which I have sent the right hon. Gentleman a number of copies. I expect that other hon. Members have also sent him large numbers of copies which they have received from their constituents. I have received other forms of complaint but the standard form is as follows:
My pension is due from"—
—the L.M.S. or whatever other railway is appropriate:
—Railway Superannuation Fund, is on prewar scale and not adequate for present necessities of life. The Railway Executive has rejected an appeal for an increase made by a great number of pensioners. Please ask the Minister of Transport to put through Order in Council permission for a percentage increase to be granted same as civil servants, teachers, etc., under the 1944 and 1947 Acts.
When the Minister received the first communication from me on this subject, he referred me to a written answer given to the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 14th February. The hon. Member for Moseley asked the Minister if he would:
make regulations under Section 98 of the Transport Act, 1947, to provide for the revision of pensions granted under superannuation schemes by the railway and canal companies having regard to the increased cost of living since retirement took place.
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary was:
No. The question of granting supplementary allowances to existing pensioners has been raised by the trades unions and by

other parties with the Railway Executive, who have had to decline such applications on the grounds of cost. My right hon. Friend would not feel justified in making regulations on this subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 119.]
This is a matter of very considerable importance and I hope that we shall receive a rather fuller reply from the Minister than my hon. Friend received from the Parliamentary Secretary on 14th February. The Railway Executive has assumed or had thrust upon it the assets and the liabilities of the former railway companies, and therefore it has assumed not only their financial but also their moral obligations. I have received a much longer letter from one of my constituents which says:
I worked as a clerk for nearly 46 years with the old L. &amp; N. W. Railway and later the L.M. &amp; S. and retired 12 years ago at a pension of £150 p.a. and was then quite satisfied. … The galling part of it is that men retiring now in the same position as me get £75 p.a. more as they enjoyed a cost of living bonus.
There ought not to be this discrimination. If men now retiring require a cost of living bonus to enable them to live decently, surely those employees of the former railway companies whose pensions are on a pre-war scale are equally entitled to that consideration?
If it had not been for the nationalisation of railways, it would have been an obligation on the former railway companies to see that those pensioners were well treated. Whether or not they would have been able to fulfil that obligation is a matter of guesswork, but now that the Government have taken over the railways, they should give full and fair treatment to those former railway employees who have been deprived of the moral claim they would have had against their former employers. They can now look only to the Railway Executive, and the Railway Executive ought not to let them down. I very much hope that I shall obtain a sympathetic and encouraging answer from the Minister.
I have two short points to make about the Clauses of the Bill. The first concerns Clause 40 which is the first Clause in Part VI. It is entitled "Crown rights" and says:
Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate right power privilege or exemption of the Crown.
That may be an old form but I rather doubt whether it ought to be included


in this or any future Bill because during the life of this Parliament we have passed the Crown Proceedings Act which was designed to place the Crown for all practical purposes at law on the same footing as the subject. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain why it was considered necessary to insert this Clause.
I also want to ask a question about Clause 50 which reads:
As from the passing of this Act no right of way as against the Commission shall be acquired by prescription or user over any road footpath thoroughfare or place now or hereafter the property of the Commission and forming an access or approach to any station goods yard wharf garage or depot or any dock or harbour premises of the Commission.
That may be a necessary and desirable Clause but it is a pretty tall order to have in a private Bill a Clause which overrides the common law in that way. For the Transport Commission to ask for power which will exclude the acquisition of any prescriptive right over its property is something which requires a very special justification from the Government Front Bench. Those are the only points which I desire to raise in this Debate, which is one of very considerable importance because it gives us the very rare opportunity of raising points on railway administration.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Walker: I should not have risen but for the speech of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll). It is quite obvious that he is a very difficult person indeed, and I should imagine that he is very hard to please, especially when travelling on the British Railways. He seemed to think that everything was wrong and nothing was right. The trains were late, the stations were leaking and people got wet through while waiting for trains to come in. The conveniences were dirty, the railway servants drank beer in the refreshment rooms when they ought to be doing something else.
Those were some of the complaints that he levelled against the nationalisation of our railways. I have been advocating the nationalisation of our railways for the last 50 years. There have been some good books written about the advantages of nationalising our railway system, and it is early yet to be criticising so adversely what has happened in this

great service. I imagine that when we have carried out many of the details of the Bill before us tonight they will have cost the Transport Commission a considerable amount of money. Yet they are bound to spend money for they took over the railways in a wretched and deplorable condition.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale talked about trains being late. He is not the only Member of Parliament who travels up North. The last time I travelled to Manchester I left Watford Junction just after nine o'clock in the morning. The time table scheduled the arrival of the train as one p.m., and as I got out of the carriage at London Road Station, the clock showed exactly one p.m. On Monday I came down from Oxenholme Junction by the morning train. I believe it is due at Euston somewhere about 4.30, and we arrived there at 20 minutes past four. I do not think that was bad. However we must not overlook the fact that many trains are held up at different points because of the work on the railways, such as the laying of new sleepers, lines, etc. There are a hundred and one things hindering a train in its progress on a long journey. Of course, if a person is not sympathetic to the public control of our railways, then, like the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, I imagine he can and a good deal of fault.
There are one or two things that I suggest to the Minister of Transport might be of advantage in making our railways more popular. I live in the North of England, on the road to the Lake District. In Summer I can see from my bedroom window the main road from the South towards the lakes. I see scores and scores of motor coaches travelling from Yorkshire and Lancashire into the Lake district. From the back windows of my house I can see the branch line from Oxenholme Junction to Windermere, but I do not see as many trains conveying people to the Lake District as I see coaches on the roads.
If we are to compete with road traffic, the policy we have been pursuing in the past is not correct now. If we are to popularise the railways, it is no good increasing the cost of railway travelling. When I look at this Bill and think of the money that will be spent in carrying out its provisions, and all the money that is being spent on renewals


and reconstruction, and on top of that, the demand of the railway workers for increased pay, I can see that we shall have a first-class problem presented to us.
What should be the attitude to be adopted in the future? Shall we do as was done in the past and pile increased expenditure on to the travelling public? One of the most popular forms of travelling today is provided by a monthly ticket, which costs a fare and a third. That ought to be extended. It would not do the Railway Commission any harm to make it two or three months or, as the road transport people do, even six months or for an unlimited period. Why should not a monthly ticket be extended so that the holder can come back when he pleases?
Before the war we had what were called runabout tickets which were very popular. They cost 10s. and were available for a week. People who hardly ever travelled on the railways took advantage of them, especially in the Lake District. Not only did they take one almost round the Lake District, but they also gave the facility of a steamboat excursion from one end of Lake Windermere to the other. Those steamboats were never as busy in all their history as during the days of those tickets. I believe there are four or five of those steamboats on the lake. During the winter months they are laid up at Lakeside Station, and it is only in the Summer that they cater for the travelling public. Speaking as an ordinary observer, I should imagine that something could be done in the way of issuing those runabout tickets once more. I do not say that they should be issued at 10s. each; they might be 15s. or £1, but if something could be done in that direction I think that the railways would be very busy indeed.
As a keen supporter of the nationalisation of the railways, I do not like the experience I had on Monday. I travelled all the way from Preston to Euston alone in a compartment. No one else attempted to enter it. It was not the only empty compartment. I want to see our trains filled and well patronised. The only way that can be done is to stop the excessive charges that are being made and make a more reasonable charge to the travelling public. If that were done, we should popularise the railways and

make them far better competitors with road traffic than they are at present. I support the Bill in order to enable the Commission to make the railways a first-class job, and to give to the general public the facility of cheap and pleasant travel from one part of the country to the other.

8.49 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I feel strongly that some more generous consideration should be extended to the senior officers of the railway administration which has come under the control of His Majesty's administration. Of course all possible and convenient arrangements have been made with regard to the fixation of salaries and pensions and the promotion of the general efficiency of transport services throughout the country. However, the higher executives who have had to leave their occupations and have retired have not had the same measure of consideration.
I put a Question on the Order Paper the other day inviting the Minister—for whom I have the greatest possible respect for we have been friends in this House for a long time—to revise the pensions of higher executives of the railway services who have retired and of those who will have to retire shortly. Arrangements have been made through the Joint Whitley Council, with which I was associated for a great many years, for the fixation of salaries and remuneration. I can recall no such organisation between the Commission and those members of the higher branches of the service who have retired. Some arrangement of that kind ought to have been made.
I tried to put down a Question but the Minister, in his wisdom, has managed to elude all these questions in the House by placing the responsibility on the Commission. How delightful of him to try to avoid a lot of trouble in this House in that way. Those, however, are the ways of present-day statesmanship. I did, however, succeed in getting a Question on the Order Paper regarding pensions. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that the answer was wholly unsatisfactory and that no arrangement is being made for an increase of pension. Officers were retired from the transport and railway services many years ago after long service, but no extra consideration is given to them in spite of the increased cost of living and


everything else which we all experience in these wholesome and healthful times through which we are now passing.
The Minister should give special consideration to the old servants of the railways and canals. At one time I enjoyed the highly respectable position of chairman of the National Council of Inland Waterways. I made a poor job of it, I admit, but on the whole it was a respectable position in the economic life of the country. Members of that service who retire should have some recognition by the Government in their pensions so that they will not become a burden to the taxpayers of the country. I am perfectly certain that all of us in this House would endorse any action by the Minister which would place those classes of servants, who have done so much for the community, in a position in which they would not have to appeal for the charity of their fellow citizens to maintain a standard of life commensurate with their position in our society.
I am fond of the Minister of Transport and have told him so many times, but I can never get him to see my point of view. It is a sad experience trying to get Ministers on the Front Bench to see the viewpoint of hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and myself, who are always sensible in our views. I appeal to the Minister not to fob me off by saying that all these questions must be dealt with by the Commission. As one of His Majesty's Ministers he should take a certain measure of the responsibility which he is now trying to hand over to the authorities which have been created under the direction of the House.
My appeal on behalf of these servants of the railways is a very strong one. Many of them who have now retired after long employment have rendered abounding service to the community in their various capacities. Instead of being turned aside they should be given full consideration so that the rising cost of living and all the other factors are taken into account. I hope that in future the Minister will deal fairly and squarely with cases of this kind.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I want to congratulate the House on having found an opportunity of dealing

with this nationalised service. All of us have been disappointed that we have not been able to raise questions of this nature. This is, perhaps, a warning to Ministers that if they are as bad-hearted in dodging the issue as hon. Gentlemen opposite consider them to be, they should avoid introducing Measures of this kind if they wish to escape criticism of their services.
I wish to ask the Minister about the present position of pensions, a question already raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It appears from what they have said that they are pleading for supplementation of pensions granted years ago and not necessarily from the Transport Commission. The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) mentioned one case of somebody who retired 12 or more years ago. Why was not some adjustment of his position made before the Transport Commission came into being? Why have we had to wait for so long?

Sir J. Mellor: Would the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) agree that the Transport Commission took over not only the assets but also the liabilities from the former railway companies? The basis of our suggestion, therefore, is that the Transport Commission should honour those obligations.

Mr. Percy Morris: May I put a query to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor)? He suggested the men had been deprived of a moral right because the British Transport Commission had assumed responsibility for the railways. Is he not aware that for nearly three years prior to nationalisation, the railway unions had made repeated representations to the railway companies to grant supplementary pensions but that those pleas were made entirely in vain?

Sir J. Mellor: rose—

Mr. Keenan: May I be allowed to continue my speech? The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, when he raised the question half an hour ago, entirely mistook the point. What I am suggesting to him is that representations should have been made years ago on behalf of these pensioners, for the cost of living has not risen appreciably since the Transport Commission took over. No representation was made or, at least, there was no agreement—

Sir J. Mellor: But is it not since the war that the Cost of living has risen and the need for an increase has become obvious?

Mr. Keenan: Following the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris), I should point out that representations were made on behalf of widows and orphans to the former shareholders when there was so much noise about the question of compensation, but they refused to make any concession before the Commission took over. In all forms of public and private service, when anybody is pensioned off, there should be an obligation to see that the pension is maintained at least at its value in relation to the cost of living at the time it was granted. Obviously, as the cost of living increases, the value of the pension becomes less.
I suggest that had the railway companies remained in being, and had the Transport Commission not come into existence, hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have mentioned this question. They would not have listened to appeals of this nature. Representations were made by the unions on behalf of these unfortunate individuals, but nothing was done. Although the Commission has been running for only about 13 months, hon. Gentlemen opposite are grumbling that it has not responded quickly. I hope, however, that this matter is not lost sight of, for I realise that the railway services have been taken over and that anyone who takes over a public service of this kind takes over also its obligations.
The matter of fares, about which something must be done, is nothing new. Difficulties existed long before the Government attempted, or even suggested, the taking over of transport services. In prewar days railway companies had long recognised the competition from bus services, particularly on long-distance routes. It is no use the Opposition trying to blame the present Government for creating something which existed long before the nationalisation of transport was attempted or even visualised. Railway fares, certainly in the Merseyside area, appear to be something like twice the ordinary bus fares. The difficulty is that the bus is more convenient for the individual, and that fact must be faced. I can see no solution. I can only think that either railway fares must come down

or bus fares will have to go up. That is the general suggestion as to how to balance it. It has been suggested that all we have to do is to reduce railway fares and automatically everyone will travel on the railway. One hon. Member was talking about travelling from Preston to Euston and having a carriage to himself. I do not suppose that if on that day the fare had been reduced by half, it would have attracted another passenger. I personally do not mind travelling alone. It is much more comfortable and one can stretch out one's legs.
We must agree that the problem is one which has not been created since the Commission came into being; but the angle from which I regard the problem is that the British railway service is one of the most important in the country and we have to see that it is maintained, developed and preserved. Even if it necessitates some adjustment of fares either up or down, that has to be done. I have heard a lot of criticism about over-staffing, and whether there is not already redundancy of staff on the railways. They certainly carried a lot of directors in the old days—more than they ought to have done. The Commission will have to recognise that it cannot afford to carry its workpeople as passengers. In dealing with this question, there will have to be a rather better approach than there has been. If the railways have to make a reduction of fares and carry a greater burden, we shall have to accept it.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the hon. Member giving the House to understand that he wishes to reduce the number of railway servants now employed in railway administration?

Mr. Keenan: No; I said it was suggested that there are rather more employees than are wanted on the railways. I do not know to what extent the old railway companies were responsible. I have heard it said that they they were responsible, but whether they were or not the fact is that the problem has to be faced. The Transport Commission, in taking the whole thing into consideration, must realise that the railways will have to be run not only for the public but in the interests of trade and the public service of the country.
I am glad that we have had this Debate on the nationalised railway service. It gives us an opportunity of putting forward our point of view, which we seem to be in danger of being denied. If any Ministers think on the lines suggested by the Opposition, and wish to dodge the issue, they should think a second time before introducing a private Bill of this kind.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Drayson: This Debate on the first British Transport Commission private Bill has brought forward some very disquieting views from hon. Members opposite, particularly from the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan). Did I understand him to say that the railways should not carry their own workpeople as passengers? Those, I think, were his words.

Mr. Keenan: I am sorry that the hon. Member is perhaps not familiar with some of the words used in industry. It may be my fault. I was foolish enough to expect that the hon. Member would understand me. If I remember rightly, what I did say was that the railways could not carry redundant servants. At any rate, that was what I intended to say. In common parlance a "passenger" is someone who does not pull his weight.

Mr. Drayson: The hon. Member is now suggesting that at the moment the railways have on their books a number of redundant workers. Will he tell us how many redundant workers he thinks that they have, and is he suggesting that the special concessions to railway workers, regarding holiday fares and so forth, should be withdrawn—

Mr. Keenan: No.

Mr. Drayson: —and that they should not be carried as passengers on the nationalised railways, but should pay their fares just the same as anyone else? As we have present the Minister of Transport it does afford as an extra opportunity of putting some very direct questions to him. The hon. Member for Kirkdale has said that he wishes to bring the bus fares and the railway fares together, that they should somehow meet halfway.

Mr. Keenan: I wish that the hon. Member would not try to make a speech

by exaggerating what I did say. I did not say anything of the kind. I pointed out the problem and suggested to the Minister what should be done. I did not make the slightest reference of the kind he has mentioned about privilege tickets in connection with the conditions of workmen.

Mr. Medland: The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) does not understand workmen's language.

Mr. Drayson: I listened to the hon. Member for Kirkdale very carefully and I understood that he wanted to bring these fares together somehow. He did not say it was the final answer; but he made the suggestion to the Minister of Transport for his consideration.
I wish to get a definite guarantee tonight from the Minister of Transport that he has no intention whatever of putting up the bus fares in this country, either on long distance road transport or on short distance transport by the ordinary bus services. I hope that he appreciates that this is a most important point as it affects rural areas such as those which I have the privilege to represent. In the Yorkshire Dales, bus fares to the market towns are a considerable item in many a country housewife's budget. I hope that we shall get an assurance that the Minister has no intention of increasing those fares. If buses, whether nationalised or not, can operate on their present fares at a reasonable profit, or any profit at all, there is no excuse for putting up fares merely to help the Government out of their difficulties with nationalised railways. The Government initiated the nationalisation of the railways. They told us in this House that they were certain that they could make a far better job of it than the previous owners. So far, all indications are that they have utterly failed.

Mr. Medland: Nonsense. What are the indications?

Mr. Drayson: The indications are that the railways will make a loss of several million pounds which the taxpayers will have to find.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until the railways were taken over, under the control agreement the loss which had to be met and sub-sidised by the Government during the


last year was somewhere in the neighbourhood of £60 million, whereas we do not know yet the extent of the loss made during 1948?

Mr. Drayson: That has absolutely nothing to do with this question. The railways operated for a very long time before that agreement. Sometimes they made a loss, sometimes they made a profit. When they made a loss they lost their shareholders' moneys and not that of the general public.

Mr. McAdam: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that from 1927 until 1938 the railways were subsidised through decreases in railway workers' wages?

Mr. Drayson: I do not accept that suggestion. I was referring to the important question which worries a lot of people, concerning the intentions of the Minister about bus fares. It is possible to get from London to Edinburgh by long-distance bus transport for 50s. return. The single third class fare on the railway today is 81s. 9d., and the return fare to Glasgow is 109s. Many people would find it impossible to go from the North to the South of England if they had to pay £5, but private enterprise is able to carry people from London to cities in the North for half the price charged by the railways. I hope that the Minister will allow that state of affairs to continue.
It was suggested by an hon. Member opposite that the monthly fare should be increased to a longer period if not indefinitely. In that connection I would refer to the question of children at boarding schools who would benefit by such a provision. I hope that the Minister will be able to extend the period from the present four or five weeks to the seven or eight weeks which is the time which students are away from home so that they may benefit by the cheaper return fare instead of having to pay single fare for both journeys. That concession would also benefit students at universities. I also ask the Minister to consider extending the half-fare rate to coincide with the school-leaving age. At present, now that the age has been increased and people are finding that their family budgets are strained to the limit by the high cost of living, they have an extra burden when they have to pay full fare

for children over 14 who are still at school.
I return to the question of redundant workers and say how glad I am that the women porters have been removed from the stations throughout the country. It was most unfortunate that we had to expect women to do work which was traditionally the work of men. I am sure that it was not a fact of which any trade unionist or any hon. Member opposite was really proud. Naturally, we appreciated the fact that women were prepared to do the work while there was no one else to take their place. I am glad that they are the first redundant workers, and I hope that they have all found congenial work in other directions.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Champion: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) into the difficult field in which he travelled. It is quite certain that it is going to be a difficult enough job for the tribunal to deal with railway fares. I want to add my voice to the plea made by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) relating to the pensions of those people who were pensioned before the Transport Commission took over our railways. I should like to be able to do it in his honeyed tones, and I rather think that, despite the fact that he kissed the Blarney Stone a long time ago, the effect has not yet worn off, and he is still able to make his appeal in such words and such a manner as must, if the Minister's heart is touchable at all, succeed in touching it. I should like to add my plea to what he said, recognising as I do that there must have been representations made by the railway trade unions in connection with the matter. The parties most concerned have already made known their views in other places, but I feel that it is justifiable to add my voice to theirs.
I would say to the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) and to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) that if they have not seen any improvements in the railway services as a result of nationalisation, they must surely be blind to what is happening on our railways today. They certainly must be blind not to see the new spirit which is actuating the railway workers, and they must also be blind to the improvements


which are the result of the work of the Railway Executive. Indeed, some of these improvements are showing themselves in a small way, but some of the bigger works will not show themselves fully for quite a long time. Such things as engineering projects, improvements in locomotives and general standardisation obviously will not show themselves for some time, but there are some improvements in smaller matters which have been showing themselves already and which are indicative of better standards.
The trains which I normally use, I notice, are now running very much nearer to time than before nationalisation, and there are big improvements, for which I must praise the Hotels Executive, already showing in the hotels and in railway catering generally. I am pleased to say that, at the station which I have to use quite often, that at Derby, there has been a vast improvement in a refreshment room there which I used to regard as one of the most hideous of all the places which I had to frequent before nationalisation.

Sir P. Harmon: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? What he is now telling the House is a reflection on the previous management of these hotels, because the same people who managed the hotels before nationalisation are managing them now.

Mr. Champion: That is not quite the case. The people who managed them before had to do their job within the limited field set down for them by people like the hon. Gentleman himself, who was a railway director, who set a comparatively narrow field in which to work, but now these people have more scope and they are using that scope in a way which is showing results in general management in that sphere.
I should have liked to have a longer time in which to cover many other aspects of the working of the railways. For instance, I should have liked to ask the Minister what progress is being made in connection with automatic train control. Are we, in fact, spreading this method from the Western Region to the other parts of the system with the rapidity with which my right hon. Friend said he hoped to do it in the answer which he made to me in an Adjournment Debate some time ago? Is he carrying on with a great extension of track circuiting, and

is the Railway Executive examining the suggestion which I saw was put forward recently that, where trains have been stopped because of accidents, flares instead of detonators should be used? I hope he will look into those minor points.
I have been particularly struck by the wording of Clause 46 which is designed to deal with pilfering on the railways. I, as an old railway servant, condemn absolutely and entirely every railway servant who participates in any way in that bad practice. I believe it is bad for the railways and bad for everyone associated with the railways. Every decent and honest railwayman is affected and be-smudged by the action of those people who do not recognise the seriousness of pilfering. I am hoping that the administration will look at this and consider it because I think there are certain words in that Clause which perhaps might be looked at again. I feel a little bit doubtful about the words "reasonably suspected." I want to know who is going to decide what those words really mean, and whether they have been arrived at after reasonable consultation with the unions concerned.
There are certain other things in the Clause which I do not like and upon which I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us. I believe that the honest, decent railwayman must expect some protection from the activities of perhaps some of the police who might not have a reasonable outlook on this matter. Pilfering is something with which I have dealt as a member of an executive of a trade union. I recognise and appreciate these difficulties, but I would ask the Minister to consider carefully everything which this Clause contains. I shall end where I started on this matter with a plea to all those with whom I used to work and to all who are working on the railways at the present time who are stupid enough to pilfer, to cease this practice because it is destructive of morale and destructive of the usefulness of this great service to the public.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I rise to make a few observations before the Minister replies. The first thing I wish to say is that I think the House—and I believe I shall carry hon. Members opposite with me in this—should be grateful for the application and watchful-


ness of some of my hon. Friends who, by an appropriate objection, caused this Bill to be brought on to the Floor of the House and debated among us this evening. It is an old principle of our Debates that money should not be voted without the redress of grievances, and certainly no Bill of this kind should be passed without first of all going into the credentials of those who are petitioning us in this matter to see whether they are fit and proper persons, carrying on their duties in such a way as to justify their having this Bill.
After all, in Question and Answer, the Minister can often say, "Well, this is a matter for the Commission," and nearly always it is; but when the Commission comes, as it has to come this evening, to ask through the Minister for certain special privileges, we are entitled to ask for, and on this occasion to demand, an answer before we are prepared to give those powers and privileges to this body. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will recognise—I am sure that on this occasion he does—that it will not be enough in reply to this Debate to turn round and say, "It is a matter for the Commission." Of course, it is, but that is the reason why the Debate has taken place. We shall require an answer to all the main questions which have been put from both sides of the House.
The next thing I wish to say is how much I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Southern Derby (Mr. Champion). He was in a difficulty over time; I have often been in that difficulty myself. I agree with him that we want a little explanation of the wording of Clause 46. It certainly places the onus in exactly the reverse way to that in which it is normally placed in all matters of criminal law. It may be that the words are taken out of previous Acts, but I do not know and I think we should have some explanation of why the Clause is in that particular form. In the rest of his remarks the hon. Member was in striking contrast to most of his colleagues. Very few hon. Members opposite could fail in the course of their comments to refer to the grave problems which confront the railways at the present time. The hon. Member for Southern Derby reminded me somewhat of a vicar thanking his congregation for a successful fete. He was praising the Hotels Executive, the

Minister, the canals; everybody came in for praise and he was obviously anxious to leave nobody out in case they felt hurt about it all.

Mr. Champion: rose—

Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot give way, for I have little time. I must say that the Minister perhaps looked a little happier during the speech of the hon. Member for Southern Derby than he did during most of the speeches of hon. Members behind him this evening. There was, for example, the speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker). He must be a very unhappy man tonight. He has been advocating nationalisation for 50 years, but when he came to the end of his speech tonight and really began to open his heart to the House, all he could do was to look back with a certain nostalgia to those happy days of private enterprise when one could go for 10s. round about and move up and down Lake Windermere. They must have been happy days; that is not what one can do at the present time. The hon. Member complained of the sadness, and it must be sadness for a man who has advocated nationalisation for 50 years, of having to sit in a completely empty compartment all the way between here and his constituency—scarcely an advertisement for the success of the policy he has so constantly put forward.

Mr. Walker: I was protesting against the excessive charges of travelling, which are not a result directly of nationalisation.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I sympathise with the hon. Member. Hon. Members on all sides have shared in his protest. I come to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), who put forward a most unconvincing case about pensions, because on this occasion he found himself in an unusual role as an ex-official of the Transport and General Workers' Union—

Mr. Keenan: I am still an official.

Mr. Thorneycroft: —then, a doubly embarrassing role. For an official of the Transport and General Workers' Union to find himself in the embarrassing position of having, so to speak, to advocate the employers' case—because in fact that is what he was forced to do—was naturally a matter of acute embarrassment to


him, and one can hardly be surprised that he did not do it very well. The hon. Member then went on to the situation of the railways today, a subject which has occupied a large number of the speeches of many hon. Members on all sides of the House. He described the problem as it exists—rail fares were going up, traffic was going away to the roads; my tongue was hanging out in the excitement of anticipating what solution he was going to provide for all these problems. At the critical moment, however, he said, "I have not really got a clue."
That disappointed me somewhat and made me feel that at this stage in the proceedings some contribution should be made as to what could be done about these problems. He went on a little further, however—and it is no good sheltering behind words—saying "There is a limit; I suggest to the Minister that this or that should be done." I heard what he said perfectly plainly. One thing he wanted the Minister to consider was putting up bus fares, and he said it perfectly plainly; it is within the recollection of the House and it is on record in HANSARD. In a moment or two, I will ask the Minister what are his intentions on this matter. The second contribution of the hon. Member was that, they should stop carrying the workmen, because work-people in the industry have at the present time certain privileges in the matter of travel, privileges similar to those which are quite customary in many industries—for instance, free coal. There are three separate points in the hon. Member's speech with which I shall deal. I am coming to the third point.

Mr. Keenan: I know the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent anybody. "Carrying" can be used in two contexts. I did not mean carrying them by issuing them with special privilege tickets, but carrying them when not required as workers.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member did not make himself very plain. I thought he intended to say they should not have privileges in travel. The only other thing he could have meant was that they ought to be sacked. If he meant the Minister ought to sack a substantial number of railway workers, let him get up and say so. I should be interested to hear what the Minister's views are about that.

What it boils down to is that the only solutions the hon. Gentleman put forward was that bus fares should be put up so that the people who normally travel by bus—which, as the hon. Gentleman admits, is more convenient in many cases —would be compelled to travel by railway; and the second solution was to save costs by sacking railway workers. If only he had said in 1945 that that was the policy of the Socialist Party I think the people of this country would have found it much easier than they did to make up their minds about some of the intricate problems that then confronted them. So much for the hon. Member for Kirkdale.
Now I come to the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies). He again put forward, as he has on several occasions, the interesting and extremely clear-cut and well-reasoned point that in the difficulties in which the railway industry finds itself at the present time, the solution is a more imaginative approach. I do not see much imaginative approach by this Transport Commission. What imaginative approach, for instance, was there in the drab, little bureaucratic decision to paint all the barges the same colour? There is not a lot of imagination in that sort of thing. Incidentally, I wish the Minister would take the opportunity of saying something about that matter. In itself it was a small thing, but I can imagine few things that more clearly illustrate the miserable pettiness we sometimes find in large-scale organisations. The Transport Commission must think of something else than the standardising of the colour of barges if we are to get anywhere. To that extent I agree with the hon. Member for Enfield. I think he would join with me in condemning a decision of that character.
Then he said—which is true—that fares have gone up a long way and that there will be substantial losses. Incidentally, the hon. Member made a point, in answer to one of my hon. Friends, about a loss of £60 million that he claimed was paid under the balancing charges. That was an awfully bad point, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well —a thoroughly bad point. The railways, on balance, before and during the war, were running perfectly well. If ever there was a time when the railways ought to be running at a profit, it is now, when there is large-scale employment in the country, when there is an American Loan


of many millions of dollars which are being poured into the country, with a great deal of resultant activity. If in these circumstances the railways cannot run at a profit, they are not likely to do so afterwards.
The hon. Member then said—and I thought at first I was going to agree with him—that the solution is not to put the bus fares up but to bring the railway charges down; but a little later in his argument he invited the Minister to draw up the charges schemes. What did he mean by "draw up charges schemes"? The charges schemes to which he was referring are schemes which the Minister is entitled to draw up under the Transport Act for the purpose of co-ordinating road and rail charges. Is the Minister engaged upon that activity now, because in the interim period it is his responsibility? Is he engaged upon it at this moment? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Kirk-dale in regard to these charges schemes and contemplate putting up the bus fares in order to drive the traffic back to the railways? Does he contemplate that as a proper function for a charges scheme because I think it is about time we had a clear answer on some of these matters. After all, the Minister has had quite a long time to think about that matter, and this is not the first time I have asked him a question about it. I have never yet got an answer, and I do not suppose that I shall get one tonight, but if ever there was an occasion when I am entitled to one, it is tonight.
Here is the Transport Commission coming along, after a longish period to think these matters over, and asking the House to pass legislation. We are entitled to ask what are its ideas about the relationship between road and rail, and it is time that the House of Commons was told something about that matter. We have been told nothing whatever about it so far. All that we have had have been statements from men like Sir Frederick Heaton that one of the things to be done is to put the bus fares up, supported by hon. Members like the hon. Member for Kirkdale who have said that that is a perfectly proper procedure for the Minister to contemplate. What has the Minister to say about that? I hope we shall have an answer.

Mr. Keenan: It is not true; I did not say that.

Mr. Thomeycroft: What about the road passenger side anyway? Under the Transport Act, the Minister was given power to consider schemes for the co-ordination of passenger transport. Is he contemplating nationalising the road passenger side? I think that the House of Commons ought to be told that. I do not think this is a thing which the Transport Commission should be allowed to decide behind our backs, because that is what is happening. Only one scheme has been considered so far, and the evidence given by the Transport Commission indicated that it was contemplating area schemes in all the areas and complete public ownership of the road passenger side. That was not necessarily a feature of the Transport Act as it left the House of Commons. So I say that we want to know what are the views of the Transport Commission. If there is any nationalising to be done, it ought to be done by the House of Commons and not in this hole-and-corner way.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The Bill provides for that.

Mr. Thomeycroft: I hope very much that the Minister will say quite plainly that it is his intention to make a statement to the House of Commons before any general policy of nationalising the road transport side is even contemplated.
The last point to which I want to make reference is the "C" licence holders. Once again, this evening, as on so many other occasions, the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) has pressed the Minister to look into this question of the "C" licence holders. When the hon. Member says, "Look into it," what he means is that he holds to his original opinion that the "C" licence holders ought not to have been allowed the freedom secured for them by this side of the House. I wish that he had the frankness and forthrightness to say plainly—

Mr. Ernest Davies: In my speech I stated that I maintain that I was right at the time.

Mr. Thorneycroft: If I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman I apologise, but his view has been made plain on previous occasions that he' considers that the "C" licence holder should never have been allowed the freedom which we secured for him. What we are not happy about is


the Minister's view. It is, after all, the Minister's view that really counts in this matter. I hope that the Minister is not too fascinated by the Lord President of the Council to listen to what I have to say. This evening, I want to hear from the Minister his attitude towards these "C" licences. True, they have increased in numbers—and small wonder. It is about the measure of the success of his nationalisation policy. After all, they operate under considerable disadvantages; in the great majority of cases they have to travel one way empty, which very much increases the costs. Yet despite all that, these people prefer to carry their own goods in their own lorries rather than subject them to the delays and uncertainties, which have been described in many speeches during this Debate, involved in handing them over to the nationalised monopoly of the right hon. Gentleman.
Those are the main points on which I should like some reply this evening. The situation of the railways at the present time is a serious matter, and has been described by hon. Members on both sides as not by any means a happy one. They are losing money and the fares are going up. Everybody agrees that something ought to be done about it. We have often put our side of the matter. This evening it is time for the Minister to come forward and say what the Transport Commission's own policy is on this matter.

9.41 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The Debate this evening has covered an exceedingly wide field, and I am satisfied that after this experience no hon. Member can say that there are not adequate opportunities of discussing the affairs of socialised industries.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedford) The right hon. Gentleman did not give us the opportunity.

Mr. Barnes: So many details and aspects of the transport administration have been discussed—most of them are in no way affected by this Bill—that I trust I shall be excused if in the short time at my disposal I do not deal with individual Member's comments and suggestions, but group them under the issues that have been raised.
First, I deal with the monopoly accusation. This Bill covers mainly the affairs of the four railway companies and the old London Passenger Transport Board. Before nationalisation, each of these five bodies had a monopoly over the respective areas granted by Parliament; and if each individually had brought forward the proposals embodied in this Bill the situation would have been no different in fact as regards the relationship of the House to these proposals.
The problem of fares, and the difficulties that represents in the winning of railway traffic, has played a large part in and run consistently through most of the' Debate. I sometimes feel that in thin regard both Parliament and the public are not quite fair to or appreciative of the recent history of our railways. I do not think we take sufficiently into consideration—and this is not a question of what body of persons is for the moment responsible for administration—the fact that the nation has completely subordinated railway affairs, managements, and interests to national requirements during two wars, and particularly in the last war. The railways served the interests of the nation under very grim circumstances dur-the war, when the British railway system was the channel for the bulk of transport.
The Government of that day made no arrangements and no financial provisions to enable whatever railway management emerged after the war to equate its price levels with the moving price levels in the-community. I said, when the increased charges were put on, that this had had the effect of confronting the railway administration with one complete increase to try to meet the costs of their requirements. The price of coal, timber, steel and all the major requirements of the railways had been rising steadily throughout the war, but the Government did nothing to meet that situation, nor did they allow the railways, which were performing a first-class military task, to keep the rolling stock and permanent way up to a state of efficiency. It is an exceedingly unfortunate situation, if the service has suffered more than the normal business interests in this country, that it should now be subjected to unfair and inconsiderate criticism on the Floor of the House.
I took the responsibility for the increased fares and charges before nationalisation, because I did not consider it fair to place the responsibility on any body of persons called upon to carry out this task. But even today the increase in railway fares is only 55 per cent. over 1939, as compared with an increase of over 100 per cent. in the price of the major commodities the railways have to use. This problem was disclosing itself in the inter-war years. There was the rapid growth of road passenger transport and road haulage. The weight of capital expenditure for the railways was so much heavier than the weight of expenditure for road vehicles that it enabled comparable road vehicles to operate at a level of charges against which no railway administration could possibly compete. The old railway companies tried to get over the difficulty by purchasing an interest in the road passenger and haulage undertakings, but the process was not sufficiently quick to enable them to catch up with their financial arrears due to the rapid growth of road transport. The policy of the Government was to accelerate what was taking place, namely, private unification, when they introduced the nationalisation proposals.
I have never altered or in any way obscured the fact that the policy behind nationalisation was not to interfere with the choice of the individual in the service he wishes to use. The policy was eventually to co-ordinate the whole of the transport services of certain kinds—not "C" licence transport and short-distance haulage transport—and by that process eventually to pool the receipts coming from all forms of transport so that in the final result, the British Transport Commission could pay its way irrespective of whether any particular section was able to be run at a profit or not. The other alternative was that the railways should be subsidised direct by the Exchequer. That policy I have just referred to is perfectly plain and is working out in fact.
With regard to representations which have been made about falling receipts, workmen's fares, the school leaving age and bus fares, the position can be stated quite clearly. Problems such as those concerning workmen's fares and those relating to the raising of the school-leaving age, must come under

review in some form or another. I have always resisted the suggestion that they should be determined by the Minister or by Parliament. I have always resisted that, because I do not consider that the Minister is equipped with adequate advice, machinery and personnel to deal with such exceedingly complex business problems. Before the Transport Act was passed, I established a working committee to get on with the preparatory work for the charges scheme because of its immense complexity, the wide range of variations that take place and its reaction on railway finance. It was laid down quite clearly in the Act that within two years the British Transport Commission would have to prepare a revision of its charges scheme, and a proper public legal tribunal has been established under Section 76 so that all their proposals can come under legal and public examination. When we reach that stage, all public bodies and all interests will be able to represent their views about these charges.
As far as existing road passenger bus services are concerned, hon. Members are aware that they are dealt with by the conditions attached by the licensing authorities, who are quasi-judicial authorities, when they grant a road passenger service licence, and neither the Minister nor the House nor the British Transport Commission can at the present moment deal with the problem of existing bus fares. I want to make it perfectly plain that in this period—[Interruption.] Hon. Members have addressed these questions to me very directly. I have limited time at my disposal and I am entitled to ask for their very close attention. To avoid any injustice in this matter, I want to make it perfectly plain that no individual has any authority to make any statement about what railway fares or bus fares or any other type of fare will be until this procedure has been complied with. With regard to the request—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he make this clear? Does what he has just told us mean that the issue of the continuance or not of workmen's fares is still in doubt?

Mr. Barnes: It is not a question of being in doubt or being under consideration. It does not matter whether it is


season tickets, bus fares, workmen's fares, coal charges or steel charges; anything which affects the system of charging on any aspect within the British Transport Commission will come under the charges scheme. All anticipations, all assumptions and all statements at the present moment are without any authorisation or official foundation whatsoever. That is the position which I want to make perfectly plain so that hon. Members cannot engage in assuming and publicising and creating opinions in the minds of the people which are not justified, not accurate and not fair at the present moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) asked that I should publish the Report of the working party on the London Railway Plan. I agree that that is a matter of major interest to the London population. It involves a very large capital expenditure. I have just received the Report and I am giving it full, immediate and urgent consideration. It would be my desire to publish a report of that kind at the earliest possible moment because I think that the more the London population appreciates the accumulation of problems which has to be faced today, the better.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made great play with over-crowding difficulties. I have travelled on the London Transport system for 40 years. I travelled on the old steam trains. Whenever there was an improvement it was assumed that overcrowding would cease to exist. As a matter of fact, the growth of London's population, the increasing habits of travel, the spreading out of the population, and the longer journeys have always outstripped the facilities provided in the past, whether by private enterprise, by the London Transport Board, or by the present organisation which, of course, has only had 12 months in which to work. Since the war some 30 miles of additional electrification and extension of the tube system in London have taken place. That is a major work of improvement, and there are some 28 more miles still in the course of construction. I believe that the bulk, if not the whole of that additional 28 miles, will be completed this year. The present capital cost of new extensions is approximately £14 million.
With regard to the staff problem, the staff of the British Transport Commission is small and many have been drawn from the existing railway service. I would put the problem of redundancy in this way: I had the experience of examining this problem when it was under the control of the four general managers of the main line railways. I saw then that the railways had been through the experience of any big organisation. Many of their experienced personnel were called up and temporary staff—both men and women, but primarily women—were brought in to do the job. At the end of the war, and with demobilisation—anyone who has controlled a big organisation well knows, the ex-Service men have to be taken back, it is a little time before the wartime personnel can be removed, the staff made smaller, and the organisation brought back to a healthy condition.
I think that the British Transport Commission are handling this problem with due consideration of all the circumstances involved. They do not want to dismiss thousands of persons ruthlessly and brutally, but there is no doubt that the total number employed in transport is more than is necessary. In the interests of good national economy, we cannot afford with the shortage of manpower today and because of the financial position of the railways, to be carrying unnecessary people. Provided the reduction is carried out with due consideration, as any decent business organisation would carry it out, that staff must come down to normal proportions.

Mr. Drayson: How many are there to go?

Mr. Barnes: I cannot say how many there are to go. That is a matter for consultation between the British Transport Commission—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: rose—

Mr. Barnes: —and the unions concerned.

Mr. P. Morris: rose—

Mr. Barnes: No, I have only a minute left. The only other point I want to refer to is the repeated statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. Continually he creates the impression that the taking over of bodies like Tilling and S.M.T. has represented a higher price than would have been paid if they had


been taken over through an area scheme by a compulsory clause. I do not consider that to be the case, and I should like to state clearly that in my view such an assumption is unwarranted.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — X-RAY FILM SUPPLIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Maude: In raising the question of the shortage of supplies of X-ray film for hospitals, I should like to state at the outset those questions which I very much hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be able to answer. I hope, too, that he will regard them as helpful to him and his Department in explaining a situation that is in grave need of explanation, particularly in relation to the fact that persons who are in-patients of hospitals are in grave danger if they are not able to have proper dental X-ray examinations. The absence of such facilities is of grave importance in respect of serious diseases.
I should like to tell the House some of the things which concern doctors in dental examinations. First, there are ulcers of the stomach; then there is the poisoned condition of the thyroid glands; the grave and tragic circumstances of the two forms of arthritis—osteo and rheumatoid; valvular and other heart diseases; grave eye conditions and, last but by no means least, high blood pressure. All these things the clinician, as I understand he is called, is anxious to have examined by X-ray examination of the state of the teeth in a search for what the doctor calls focal infection.
I understand there is an undoubted shortage of X-ray film in hospitals, not

merely for dental purposes but also for general purposes. In order that I may show the House that this is a matter requiring some explanation, let me recount how I came to be interested in it. It was on 10th November, 1948, last that the X-ray department of the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital drew my attention to the fact that, for the first time in their history, it was quite impossible for them to acquire any X-ray film whatsoever. The Ministry of Health had contracts with three firms—Kodak's, Ilford and Barnet—and when we communicated with them the answer was that no films at all were available. I am not talking now of only dental films. It is important that the distinction should be drawn.
On 8th November, two days before hand, Kodak's had written a letter, which I have here, which disclosed the fact that the normal increase in demand for X-ray film for many years past, before the health scheme came into effect, was 20 to 25 per cent. per annum. Naturally, the National Health Service caused extra demands, but no clear provision had been made. I make no claims merely against the present Government. There had been no clear provision in times past for the normal expected increase, as is quite clearly shown by the letter from the company, which said:
All over the country, so far as our information goes, there is this present shortage of X-ray film and the Government have been warned for years, but even during the war, when the need was equally urgent, they were not prepared to grant any priority whatsoever for the production of X-ray materials.
The Parliamentary Secretary will see therefore, that I am not blaming any one party. There was a general lack of provision in this respect.
Because the hospital was desperate I then raised the matter in the local Press, with the result that temporary supplies were forthcoming from private sources, from Bournemouth or somewhere else on the South Coast. But on 13th December I received a letter from the Board of Trade disclosing their attitude, which, I thought, was not satisfactory. The letter, written on behalf of the President, revealed that,
The Minister of Health and our President have been in consultation on the whole question of supplies to the home market. As a result there will bé some increase in the quantity of X-ray film available for distribution to


hospitals at home and, though we cannot guarantee that supply will match the greatly increased demand, we hope that the position will become progressively easier.
I would put it to the hon. Gentleman in this way. Although one is anxious to provide money by sales in the export market, nevertheless I believe that the sensible thing to do is to make the fullest possible provision for the health of the people. One should not hesitate to face this question, if I may so put it: Is John Bull to be X-rayed or is some foreigner to be X-rayed? My own belief is that the proper way to deal with this matter is to see to it that our own people have X-ray treatment, not only in the case of the grievous diseases I have mentioned, and others such as cancer, but also in respect of dental examination.
On 31st December last year, Kodak's, one of the three firms with Government contracts, were out of all stock of dental film. They had a telegram sent to them by the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital and the reply was that that company was out of all stock of dental film. Up to 1st January the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital had been out of stock of dental film for a week. The result of that sort of situation is extremely grave. But on general principles, not merely with dental film but with medical film for ordinary examination, if the Board of Trade are not able to make arrangements for the proper and necessary supply of film to the hospitals, the radiologists will be faced with an impossible situation.
Supposing, for the sake of argument, that 100 patients per week are sent down to the radiologist and only 60 per cent. can be dealt with; is the radiologist to examine the first 60 who come to him and are the remaining 40 not to be examined? Or is he to act as a sort of sieve or censor and decide which of the 100 whom the clinician wants examined are to be examined? It produces an intolerable difficulty.
On 18th January I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade. I do not greatly complain about the reply to my letter, which for some reason they called "of the 21st January," which saved them three days—but that is by the way. The answer of the President did not seem very satisfactory. In respect of general supplies of X-ray film, there was an admission that there was a

shortage of X-ray film for general purposes and he drew my attention to his reply to a Parliamentary Question on 20th January. I wish to draw attention to that because I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary would like to enlarge on it. When asked whether he would take steps to increase the supply of X-ray film available to hospitals, he said:
Supplies of X-ray film to the home market have been increasing, but not enough to meet the increased demand since the war, and especially in the last six months. Manufacturers have been doing all that they can to increase production, and after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I am asking them to supply a larger proportion of their output to the home market.
What larger proportion of the output of the manufacturers is to be supplied to the home market? I do not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give many figures, or anything like that, but percentages. Suppose that something like 65 per cent. is absorbed here by our own people in examinations, has that figure been altered recently to any really substantial extent? In his reply, the President of the Board of Trade continued:
There is, however, a shortage of X-ray film, not only here but throughout the world, and my right hon. Friend and I would make an urgent appeal to doctors, hospitals and all others who use it to exercise the utmost economy.
I do not complain of that provided that there is really sufficient to meet the demands. The information which I received from the hospital, which deals with an area in which there are half a million people, is that they are not frittering away the film. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would believe that. If there is to be any careful allocation of film, one must trust those who are gravely overworked in the hospital to see that there is no wastage. There were supplementary questions. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) drew attention to one hospital in London which was supposed to be working on one week's supply. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
… since a year ago the consumption of this material has increased by over 30 per cent.
That may well be so. I do not complain that that is false in any shape or form. My information from Kodak's is that for


years the increased demand for X-ray film has steadily been advancing at the rate of 20 to 25 per cent. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us the real facts and what has been done to cope with that position. There were other supplementary questions which I do not propose to deal with, except to say that it was suggested that:
… the amount of money obtained for this film abroad is far greater than the Ministry of Health in this country is prepared to pay and that that is very largely why there is such a great shortage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1949; Vol. 460. c. 320–1.]
I suppose that the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) meant that it was considered better to sell goods abroad than to look after the health of the people of this country. I do not believe that could possibly be true. I urge on the Minister that one should be extremely careful now to show the people that the Government are determined that in hospital treatment there should be a maximum 100 per cent. supply if possible. That should apply not merely to diseases such as heart disease, and so on; in addition, there are occupational diseases. I have already mentioned arthritis but not chronic rheumatism. All sorts of suffering are involved.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I have tried my best to make it clear what I am trying to achieve. I want answers to certain specific questions. What has, in fact, been done to step up production? Is the Minister satisfied that what has been done is sufficient? What proportion of the home product is exported and what proportion was exported until this matter was raised recently in the House? I had the opportunity, for which I was grateful, to give the Parliamentary Secretary notice privately of these questions so that he would not be taken by surprise and so that it would be clear that there was no attempt to make any silly capital out of it. What has been done to obviate the bottleneck created by packing facilities? I understand that there is a bottleneck there. What arrangements have been made for supplies to be imported from the United States of America? I do not think that it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the exact quantity, but I should like to know the date of delivery.
Was it not a fact that the annual increase was between 20 and 25 per cent. in years past, and what steps were taken by this Government, not only to deal with the purely statistical increase under the National Health Service, but by way of licensing, to facilitate the construction of factories, and, therefore, the production of this X-ray film in order to meet this well-recognised large annual increase? What percentage of the demand calcilated as being necessary in hospitals is likely to be met during the remainder of this year? This is the most important question of all from the public point of view. Have the Board of Trade been careful to assess the quantity of films, both for dental and general purposes, which is likely to be made during the remainder of this year, and are they satisfied that the radiologists in both the great and the lesser hospitals will soon be able to satisfy these demands made upon them?
I appreciate that in the old days, hospitals had to look very carefully after money which was not easy to raise, and therefore there may have been less freedom in recommending X-ray examinations, but I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to take into consideration that, in hospitals which are so intensely busy, and with which most hon. Members are in touch in one way or another, it is extremely unlikely that doctors and others would be wasting any of that material which is so valuable. I think it may be possible that, where persons simply going to dentists are concerned, there might not have been the same care in the use of the X-ray apparatus in order to conduct an examination of teeth which might be of some importance in order to deal with pyorrhoea. Nevertheless, I hope that, as a result of what the Parliamentary Secretary may say, special care may be urged upon dentists to keep in mind the fact that those who are acutely and chronically ill in our great hospitals are in desperate need of these films, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to be of some assistance in clearing up this matter.

10.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): The hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention to a very important matter, for it is serious when an essential material


which is used in a most helpful branch of diagnosis is scarce. I shall try to answer all the questions which he put to me, but I should like to say at the outset that, after the end of the war, with the considerable acceleration in the installation of new apparatus in hospitals, we began to see the demand grow, and even before the introduction of the National Health Service the demands of the hospitals seemed to have increased beyond normal. My information is that the normal rate of increase before the special circumstances prevailed was of the order of 15 per cent. per annum. That is a lower figure than the one quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is the figure which has been given to me as covering the whole field. Up to about the middle of last year, the production of X-ray film was, in general, up to demand, but even before the new Health Service came into operation it was realised that production was reaching saturation point, and that unless new manufacturing capacity was created there was bound to be a shortage.
To meet the ordinary increase in demand, manufacturers had been making alterations to factory lay-out and improving packing factilities, but there was, of course, a limit to this. The two largest manufacturers have for a long time been working 24 hours a day on six or seven days a week. Machines have been seriously overworked, and there have been very few opportunities for essential overhaul and maintenance. When the Health Service same into operation there was naturally a tendency for the demand for X-ray examination to increase, and this meant a considerable extension in the demand for X-ray film.
By about September, it was estimated that the annual increase in demand had risen from the normal 15 per cent. to somewhere between 20 and 25 per cent., and even then it looked as though the demand was likely to go up to something like 30 per cent. It was in these circumstances that the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health and the manufacturers got together to see what could be done, and the action taken was really along two lines. First of all, after consultation between my two right hon. Friends and the manufacturers, it was agreed by all concerned to reduce exports from 45 per cent. of the output to 40 per cent., the

whole matter to be reviewed again in June of this year.
Then, secondly, plans for the expansion of capacity of the biggest manufacturer were pressed forward, and a licence with an immediate starting date was granted in January. But I do not want to mislead the hon. and learned Gentleman because, of course, the provision of complicated machinery and buildings will take some time. It is unlikely to be really completed for some 18 months to two years. A further small measure was taken to help to bridge the gap between supply and demand. A small manufacturer who was able to expand his output agreed to try to expand his production by 50 per cent. by July, and to treble it by the beginning of next year.
I would repeat that this, of course, all takes place in a situation where there is a world shortage of X-ray film. Even in the United States, supplies to hospitals have to be rationed. That is why X-ray film can so readily be sold in almost any market of the world. I ask the hon. and learned Member to bear in mind that we depend on what we sell overseas to buy food and materials that are essential. Looked at from that angle, it was a considerable economic sacrifice which was made in the interests of the nation's health to reduce our exports by five per cent.
To sum up on the general point, the demand for X-ray film in 1948 showed an increase over the whole year of about 24 per cent. above 1947. Production rose by approximately 14 per cent. over the previous year. It is estimated now that the demand for 1949 will be 30 per cent. above last year's, but as a result of efforts to obtain the greatest possible production from existing plant, output this year should be approximately 27 per cent. above 1948.
May I turn to the special position of dental X-ray films? Before the war we got almost all the dental X-ray films that we required from the United States of America. Home production had to be built up during the war. The difficulty of expanding production here has been due to the fact that dental X-ray film packs require a unique type of packing and special machinery is needed for this work. Demand for dental X-ray packs since the introduction of the National Health Service has increased very considerably and


by December, 1948, it had increased by about three times that of May of that year. In terms of production it is now estimated that demand is about double the present rate of output.
Steps have been taken to provide increased packing facilities and new machinery but, of course, that will take time. But in about six to nine months' time a substantial increase will be made in the amount of dental X-ray film packs that will be available to hospitals and dentists. In the meantime, however, to try to bridge the gap between supply and demand, arrangements have been made for the importation of a substantial quantity of dental X-ray film packs from the United States of America. I anticipate that the first deliveries will reach this country in from four to six weeks' time and that these deliveries, which will then continue over the rest of the year, will go a long way towards relieving the present shortage. During the last 12 months exports of dental X-ray film packs have been reduced by about 5 per cent., and this together with a small increase in total production has meant that in 1948 approximately 9 per cent. more has been provided for home use than in the previous year. Although

this percentage does not seem to be great, the actual number of individual film packs, I would assure the hon. and learned Member, is very considerable indeed.
Perhaps I may conclude by mentioning again the very great need for economy. When I say "economy" I mean it in the strict sense, as the distribution of scarce means over diverse ends. Although I doubt whether it is desirable to introduce formal categories of priorities, it is certainly desirable that those who have to take decisions in this sphere, if their supplies will not meet all their requirements, should put the really urgent cases before the less urgent cases. I am not wholly satisfied myself that the utmost economy is being effected and I would appeal in this connection to all hospitals, doctors and dentists and to every one who uses the materials, both from the point of view of my right hon. Friend whom until recently I served at the Ministry of Health and my new right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Ten o'Clock.